Spring 2010 201 Model Student Work

We'll use this page to post student work. You may take your name off your work if you wish.

Return to Human Nature

Section 1: Participation Journals

Euthyphro 10

Student 1

Throughout the entire dialogue, Socrates asks Euthyphro repeatedly what the definition of piety is. After each explanation given to him, Socrates finds the flaw and proves the definition to be false. Presumably, Socrates wants to know the answer to this question, because he is entering court on this day. He wants to be able to argue against the true definition of piety and, therefore, win the case against him. In Euthyphro’s third definition of piety, he basically says, “All that is loved by the gods is pious, and all that is hated by the gods is impious”. When Socrates says, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved by the gods”, he questions the definition. Ultimately, he completely eliminates Euthyphro’s previous definitions for piety. His first reason for not accepting this definitions is because, he proves that the piety came first, before the liking, through his “see/seeing and carry/carrying” analogies. Basically, Socrates means that “being liked” is a state of an object/idea already in existence. Therefore, that which is righteous is liked by the gods, because it is righteous, it isn’t righteous solely because the gods like it. Socrates offers a definition as well; "piety is a species of the genus 'justice'”. Soon enough, Socrates points out that his definition is also false. All that is pious is not necessarily just, as well as, not all that is just is necessarily pious. However, most human beings generally associate that which is pious, is also just, or considered “morally correct”. Finally, Socrates points out that there are many actions that cannot be sorted into both or either category. If you save your brother’s life by shooting a killer, it is not considered morally correct. But is it considered pious?

Are we radically wrong about our knowledge of reality?

Student 1

It happens daily: I am walking with a friend or driving in a car or running in the city and I look around and say to myself, “This is not real.” It is an incredibly surreal experience – I look around and realize that I have complete control over the situation around me and that my actions will be void of consequence. I am not crazy, or reckless, or an existentialist. I have lucid dreams every single night, realizing it is a dream about halfway through. This epiphany, that I am dreaming, awakens me to a completely different understanding of my (dream) reality. I can tell myself to wake up and reenter the reality that I know is certain. Because I know when I am dreaming and, therefore, asleep, I know when I am awake. It is the feeling that Plato’s captives in the caves must feel when they emerge from the cave into the sunlight, gaining a new understanding of reality. But what is reality? In the dictionary, reality is defined as “existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective and not subject to human decisions or conventions”. This definition leaves the possibility of reality open to being different from what we interpret it to be. Reality is one thing, but our idea of reality is based off of our perceptions of experiences in the world. Whether or not our perception of reality lines up with reality is a question that we can speculate upon, but how do we know? It is unlikely that we are radically wrong about our knowledge of the world. I say this acknowledging the fact that I am no philosopher or scientist, but can attempt to combine my own thoughts with the theories of philosophers’ we have read. From an admittedly more ignorant view of this question, I say that we are not radically wrong about our perception of reality because the complexity involved in the world and the scientific intricacies of our minds and bodies and the world seem too involved for us to have been wrong the whole time. However, you could refute that idea by stating that this is all our perception, and if we were being fooled, we would not know. One thing that makes reality seem evident is our ability to taste, touch, see, feel, and hear. Our senses are the way we interact and come into contact with reality. Our senses are used millions of times during the day, and science suggests that everyone’s senses work in roughly the same. Our senses are never as strong in our dreams as they are in real life, which suggests but does not prove that we are awake when we are. I keep coming back to Descartes, “I think, therefore, I am.” Whatever reality is, the fact that I am here and thinking pays tribute to the fact that I am real in some way, shape or form. Maybe it is not the way we have perceived it all along, but I can think and ask these questions, I must exist independent of an outside force. If I exist, then I can conclude that the rest of the people in the world exist, too, which further suggests that the world is real, too. Coming from a religious viewpoint, maybe our knowledge of the world now is, indeed, incomplete. Many religions suggest death as not an ending, but a beginning. An awakening, perhaps, to full knowledge and understanding of the world. It is not that this may be wrong and that is right, but maybe this world is not as real or important as we think it and heaven (or whatever you believe) is the true reality. It may be apathetic, but, for now, if our knowledge of the world is wrong, so what? It does not change the way we live or interact with others, for now. If we are the prisoners in Plato’s cave, we are content with the shadows because we do not know anything different. It does not matter if our knowledge of the world is wrong because we cannot change it.