Euthyphro And Failure Of Definition

Euthyphro And Failure Of Definition In the Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro contemplate over what is piety. What makes something pious and what makes something impious, thats the question throughout the text, but it all comes down to the value of a definition. In the end its uncertain whether piety is even defined and agreed by both sides. Socrates though develops criteria of a definition and ethical values on his own in the process of questioning of piety. Socrates talks about value conflicts and whether or not there is a resolution to them. The first question asked about piety from Socrates, Euthyphro says Very well, I say that whats pious is precisely what Im doing now: prosecuting those who commit an injustice, such as murder or temple robbery (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 102). Euthyphro first claim is incomplete form of definition. Socrates rejects Euthyphros claim. Socrates says You see my friend, you didnt teach me adequately earlier when I asked what pious was, but you told me that what youre doing is pious, prosecuting you father for murder (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). It has to be applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations, which is universal. I agree with Socrates because Euthyphros claim is more of an example, rather a definition. A book could be a cook book but you wouldnt say a cookbook to define what a book is because it wouldnt make any logical sense and frankly not universal. In order for a definition to be real, it must contain essence, the characteristic something has to happen to be that kind of thing, and a model, a standard basis of comparison. Socrates says Then teach me what the characteristic itself is, in order that by concentrating on it and using it as a model (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). A proper definition should have a characteristic that is used every time you define that something, and if does not contain that characteristic then it isnt that something. A model is simply just a comparison of what it is and its opposites. Euthyphro says In that case: whats loved by the god is pious and whats not loved by the gods is impious (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). In the beginning of text, Euthyphro mentioned that the gods quarrel therefore Socrates says And havent we also said that the gods quarrel, and differ with one another, and thats mutual hostility among them (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). If the gods differ, then they all dont agree. Pious can be god-loved and god-hated, because gods do differ and dont all agree. Just like human beings, gods can have conflict s and become enemies if theyre not settlement. Whats right and wrong shouldnt be determined by gods and religion because value conflicts can occur between gods or within a religion. Socrates supports my claim by saying Then the same things, it seems, are both hated and loved by the gods, and so the same things would be both god-hated and god-loved (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 104). Euthyphro says But Socrates, I think that on this point, at least, none of the gods do differ- that anyone who has unjustly killed another should be punished(Cohen, Curd, and Reve 105). Even if the gods do agree that murder is wrong, they still do disagree on something. Gods find themselves in value conflicts in which someones beliefs/ethics in right and wrong contradicts with other beliefs/ethics. When a criminal is indicted, they are not fighting whether what they did is right and wrong, they simply just denying acting unjustly. By denying to act unjustly, their simply trying to do lesser their punishment. So crates says So they dont argue that someone who acts unjustly should not be punished, though they do, perhaps argue about who acted unjustly, what his unjust action consisted of, and when he did it. The facts of the case are whats questioned and argued about in court cases. Right and wrong is not stable when it comes to opinions; people use more of their own opinions and values to determine whats right and wrong. When people relate to their own opinions of whats right and wrong, value conflicts can occur and lead to no resolution. People can believe in absolutism, which believe certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Euthyphro easily would like to accept pious and impious they way he defined it but Socrates continues to question and use logical contradiction. Just because something is agreed though doesnt make it morally right. Socrates insist though if pious is really whats god-loved and i mpious is god-hated he said Consider the following: is the pious loved by the gods because it pious? Or is it pious because its loved (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 106)? Both Socrates and Euthyphro agree that gods love pious because its pious, but yet in the earlier statement made by Euthyphro he believed whats god-loved is pious. It simply doesnt make sense because each contradicts itself and doesnt define piety. If gods love lying than its pious, if gods love murder its pious, and if the gods love anything its pious, that statement is just to abstract. Euthyphro then define piety as being holiness. What exactly makes someone holiness? The question in the texts is being questioned by another question. Holiness is believed by Euthyphro to be tending to the gods. Socrates says Then if piety is tending to the gods, does it benefit the gods and make the gods better (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 111)? What exactly does the god benefit from humans? Horse trainers tend a horse and make it faster, a far mer tends farm to grow the plants, and a dog trainer tends a dog so it can act more appropriately. Euthyphro is unable to give a clear answer to Socrates of what the gods benefit from humans but says the things that are pleasing to the gods in prayer and sacrificethose are the ones that are pious (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 112). Praying is simply asking the gods and sacrificing is giving to the gods. Socrates says So, on that account, piety would be knowing how to ask from the gods and how to give to them (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 112)? If the gods give us stuff we benefit from, what can humans possibly give them to their benefit? I believe its more of a trade, but I feel what we give them is not equal to what they give us. Socrates says Then piety, Euthyphro, would be a sort of expertise in mutual trading between gods and men (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). But like I said, I dont believe they can benefit from humans, and that we get the better out of the trade. Socrates brings up But how ar e they benefited by what they receive from us? Or do we get so much the better of them in the trade that we receive all our goods things from them while they receive nothing from us (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Its unclear what the gods benefit from. Euthyphro says What else do you think but honor and reverence (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Honor and reverence is what the gods benefit from us through trade. Pleasing the gods is simply honor and reverence, and honor and reverence being from sacrificing, piety can be claimed to be beneficial to gods. I feel there its not relevant to say what benefits someone ultimately is loved by someone, thats because my right and wrongs is more developed through opinions and values. But Socrates says So is the pious pleasing to the gods, Euthyphro, but not beneficial to them or loved by them(Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Euthyphro replies No, I think thats its in fact the most loved of all (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Pious is now again what is loved by the gods. In previous statements, that whats loved by the gods cant be used to define piety because it contradicts itself with the presentation of conflicts. Piety is still undefined. The Euthyphro ends where it begins, with no clarification of piety. Socrates continually reject Euthyphtos claims because he applied his mind to the matter in many ways to find the truth compared and followed ethical relativism, while Euthyphro was more absolutism, in which he already established his own truth and rather then questioning, he accepted what he believed in. Throughout the text there wasnt full clarity what pious and impious. For a definition to be accurate, it has to be universal, a model, and have essence. If Euthyphro didnt know full clarity he would of never ventured to prosecute his own father. Socrates questioning lead to answers, but not the one he wanted. Socrates found out about ethical values of relativism and absolutism. People shouldnt set their right and wrongs based on gods and religions, because gods disagree amongst themselves. Socrates doesnt leave the reader with any insight on how to resolve value conflicts but gives more insi ght on understanding them and how value conflicts develop. I believe the Euthyphro is actually a value conflict. It ends with no agreement just like a conflict of value.

Medicinal Value of Yoga Essay -- Health Medicine Exercise

Medicinal Value of Yoga What most Westerners picture when you say Yoga, is an Indian guru in cloth shorts or a long flowing robe, twisted up in a some sort of a pretzel pose. You may picture the Yoga practitioner in peak physical shape, as well as, being a very peaceful human being. It is attaining this goal that is the aim of Yoga, but what most of people don't realize, is exactly how much goes into achieving this state. Yoga time honored teaching on how to achieve physical health, psychological well being and spiritual peace. This can be achieved by concentrating for hours in a state of complete focus, know as meditation. While mediating, the practitioner assumes various body positions known as asanas, that allows for maximum circulation of the body. By quieting the mind and placing attention on the breath and on the movement (and stillness) of the body the idea is to achieve a state of mind where he experiences total health and feeling of well being. The word Yoga as a term, literally means "union", the aim of Yoga is to integrate and harmonize all the various human faculties--mind, emotions, body, and spirit. In India, where it originated, this process of harmonization takes many forms: the yoga of devotion, of meditation, or selfless service, of knowledge and study. Although are advantages and disadvantage to all types of Yoga the scientific community maintains a belief through many years of study that Yoga has definite medicinal value in the maintenance of health and treatment of disease Overall benefits of Yoga The practice of Yoga encompasses many different forms--e.g. Karma, Bhakti, Jnana, Raja, Hatha, Kundalini and Tantra). As Sri Krishna Prem so eloquently stated, Yoga is not a synthesis of a... .../item,45098.asp 7. B. K.S. lyengar, "The Tree of Yoga" 8. http://www.holistic-online.com/Yoga/hol_yoga_pos_intro.htm#Introduction 9. Sahay, Sadasivudu, Yogi, Bhaskaracharyulu, Raju, Madhavi, Reddy, Annapurna, & Murthy, 1982 10. http://www.healingyoga.com/ 11. Monroe, R., A.K. Ghosh, and D. Kalish. 1989. Scientific Studies on Yoga and Meditation, Yoga Biomedical Trust, Cambridge, England. 12. Schell, Allolio, and Schonecke (1994) Scientific Studies on Yoga and Meditation, Yoga Biomedical Trust, Cambridge, England. 13. Wood, 1993, Scientific Studies on Yoga and Meditation Biomedical Trust in Cambridge, England, Yoga Biomedical Trust, Cambridge, England. 14. http://www.chennaiwebsites.com/html/yoga/ 15. Monroe, R., A.K. Ghosh, and D. Kalish. 1989. Yoga Research Bibliography, Scientific Studies on Yoga and Meditation. Yoga Biomedical Trust, Cambridge, England.

Compare and Contrast Helena and Hermia in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”

â€Å"Two lovely berries moulded on to one stem/ so with two seeming bodies but one heart†¦..† In William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream Helena confronts Hermia to remind her once again of their relationship. A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a play about the two Athenian couples who constantly run through the course of true love. In this play Helena and Hermia are the two characters that have found their true lovers but are running through obstacles that prevent them to be with their loves.Hermia who is in love with Lysander has to go against the will of her Father Eugeus, while Helena has yet to make her love that is Demetrius fall in love with her. The whole play twists around the lovers and the way they approach to love and courtship. Although Hermia and Helena are both willing to risk honour for true love; in truth Hermia is confident in her approach to courtship while Helena lacks self-esteem.Hermia and Helena are both willing to risk their honour for their true loves. For example Hermia is risking her honour by running away with her true love Lysander:My good Lysander, I swear to thee by Cupid’s strongest bow, By his best arrow with the golden head, By the simplicity of Venus’ doves†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. By all vows that ever men have broke (In number more than ever women spoke), In that same place thou hast appointed me, Tomorrow truly will I meet thee. (1.1.169-178)Hermia vows upon the strongest symbols of love such as Cupid’s strongest bow, and Venus’ doves as her promise to meet Lysander at the place where they’ll elope. Hermia is risking her reputation by running away with Lysander, because she leaves the city with a person who she loves and trusts but is not married to, so therefore the society may consider her act as a disappointing example for other civilians. While Hermia is willing to risk her honour for Lysander, Helena is willing to risk her repute for the sake of her true love Demetrius. This is best illustrated by Demetrius who states: You do impeach your modesty too much,To leave the city and commit yourself Into the hands of one that loves you not, To trust the opportunity of night And the ill counsel of a desert place With the rich worth of your virginity. (2.1. 199-204)This passage from Demetrius depicts that Helena is risking her reputation by being alone with him at night in a deserted forest. As stated by Demetrius, Helena is committing herself to someone who does not love her and therefore she cannot trust Demetrius with the rich worth of her virginity. â€Å"Your virtue is my privilege†¦..†(2.1.205).Helena’s reply to Demetrius’s statement is that Demetrius will protect her with his virtue so therefore leaving the city and being alone with him does not seem to Helena as risking her honour. In conclusion Hermia and Helena are both connected in terms of risking their honour for Lysander and Demetrius. Helena and Hermia ar e both willing to risk their honour for true love, yet they both are also different in their approach to get to their lovers to be with them. For example the passage below shows Hermia’s confidence at her approach with Lysander. †¦.But, gentle friend, for love and courtesyLie further off in human modesty. Such separation as may well be said Becomes a virtuous bachelor and a maid. So far be distant. And, good night, sweet friend. Thy love ne’er alter till thy sweet life end! (2.2. 45-50)Hermia is confident in her approach to courtship because knows how to say no to Lysander on something that may not seem right to her such as sleeping with him. Separation before marriage is a right thing for Hermia to do and she has the confidence to express herself to Lysander. When Hermia tells Lysander to lie further off in human modesty she says it without hesitation. In this case Helena lacks the confidence that Hermia has in her approach to love. Helena is insecure about her i dentity and often compares her body image to Hermia’s as she does in the following passage. Call you me â€Å"fair†? That â€Å"fair† again unsay.Demetrius loves your fair. O happy fair! Your eyes are lodestars, and your tongue’s sweet air More tunable than lark to shepherd’s ear When wheat is green, when hawthorn buds appear. Sickness is catching. Oh, were favor so, Yours would I catch, fair Hermia, ere I go. My ear should catch your voice. My eye, your eye. My tongue should catch your tongue’s sweet melody†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ (1.1. 181-189)This passage describes that Helena is insecure about her body image as well as her personality. Helena thinks that Demetrius loves Hermia because of her beauty which makes Helena think that she is inferior to Hermia. Even though both Helena and Hermia are both known to have the same beauty; Helena finds herself uglier because she doesn’t have the love of Demetrius. Helena’s approach to her love i s weaker than that of Hermia’s because of her insecurity and a low self-esteem. Helena wants Hermia’s beauty to be a sickness that she can contract.Hermia’s sweet strain, her lodestar eyes, and Hermia’s overall beauty is what Helena wishes and her insecurity about herself. As a result Hermia’s approach to courtship is stronger because of the high level of confidence she has, whereas Helena lacks that confidence because of her insecurity about herself. To conclude, although Hermia and Helena are both willing to risk their honour for true love, Hermia is stronger at her approach to love and courtship, and Helena lacks self-esteem  because of the insecurity about herself.Hermia is willing to risk her reputation by running away with Lysander, while Helena is willing to risk her reputation by being alone with Demetrius at night. With this connection also comes an alteration, when Hermia proves her confidence that Helena is not bound to have. Hermia kn ows how to say no to something that may not seem right to her. â€Å"Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind/ therefore is wing’d Cupid painted blind†¦..† (1.1. 234-235). Helena’s statement that love is blind and looks with the eyes depicts that she approaches to love thoughtlessly; do you think this approach makes her successful in winning the heart of Demetrius?

American History