Detachment

Krishna is advocating a sort of unemotional type of life. By “detachment,” he means that one should not be too caught up in the bias of certain actions, but should live life objectively and free from temptations – the goal being perfect peace. If one doesn’t become too involved in worldly happenings, they are freed from wants, and therefore can maintain a certain level of joy. Since unhappiness stems from unfulfilled wishes, a detached state of life would leave you at ease with the world: “relinquishing the fruit of action, the disciplined man attains perfect peace” while the man who is attached to his actions is “attached to the fruit of his desire” (60). If one wants for nothing, he has nothing to blind his quest for peace, for the “man of discipline should always discipline himself, remain in seclusion, isolated, his thought and self well controlled, without possessions or hope” (66). Furthermore, the man who can be disciplined in his actions is able to see through common day-to-day problems and find self-actualization. By doing this, he is able to find wisdom because “when wisdom is destroyed by knowledge of the self, then, like the sun, knowledge illumines ultimate reality” (61). Krishna suggests doing this by finding a place of mediation, “neither too high nor too low” (66), and maintaining “an equal eye” (69) to meditate and keep your thoughts under control from human tendencies. Although the mind is naturally restless, as Arjuna points out, Krishna emphasizes that only those with the discipline enough to steady their mind will find contentment in detachment, and thus find a perfect peace in a generally chaotic world.

PHILLIES ARE #1

In the third lesson, Krishna tells Arjuna that there are two different types of action and the one that is correct is detached action. Krishna blatently says this when he says "Always perform with detachment any action you must do; performing action with detachment, one achieves supreme good." In this quote Krishna obviously is saying that if you perform action it must be done with detachment. Krishna says "No one exists for even an instant without performing action," which means that no matter what, if you are living and breathing, you are performing an action. However, it is important to be detached from the action because whenever you are detached they become less personal to you and it is easier to make the right decision. This is shown when Krishna says "Actions are all effected by the qualities of nature; ut deluded by individuality, the self thinks, I am the actor." Personally it is easier for me to understand a situation and see what the right choice is, when I do not have a personal involvement in the situation. However, when I am involved and I get caught up in a situation it is harder for me to sometimes see what the obvious decision should be. So I think that it is easier to understand a situation and make a choice if you do not have any bias or and it is easier to make the right choice and take the right action rather than if there were bias. That is what I believe Krishna meant by the detached action.

Firing Squad

When Krishna addresses Arjuna in the second teaching, he is giving him a pep-talk, telling him that he should go take action in order to protect his morals and his dignity. Krishna lets him know that those he kills will be okay since they will be reborn and their souls will remain intact. However, in the next teachings, Krishna takes a step back and says (colloquially), “But don’t take action too often, make sure that you act in moderation.” What Krishna is attempting to pass along is that action needs to occur from a distance. When he says that action should be detached, he means that action should be taken when necessary instead of needlessly flung about. To me, the summary of Krishna’s argument about detaching yourself from an action came in the 23 verse of the 4th teaching. He says, “When a man is unattached and free,/ his reason deep in knowledge,/ acting only in sacrifice,/ his action is wholly dissolved” (Gita 54). At this comment, I thought of the way firing squads were used for execution. Only one person is ever given a true bullet, the rest are blanks. This way, the men can all feel unattached and free from the man’s death. This is what Krishna is attempting to convey to Arjuna. His actions should be unattached and free, but they should still be made with the proper consideration. In the case of the war, Krishna is trying to make Arjuna understand that war may be right this time, but not necessarily every time and should therefore even though actions should be made from a distance, they should still be thought through first.

Actions

Krishna and Arjuna have a discussion about various actions that are seen as “right.” Krishna is trying to explain to Arjuna that there is always action taking place in the world no matter what. There are many natural actions that humans make just in order to live, and thoughts about senses that are just natural. However, there are certain types of actions that are seen as better than other ones. Krishna goes on to explain that the best types of actions are those that are disciplined. In other words, those actions that is not purely in just one person’s self interest. Krishna states, “A man able to endure the force of desire and anger before giving up his body is disciplined and joyful. Krishna encourages Arjuna to do actions that both are non-selfish and that are one’s duty to do. Duty is once again key in this religion and culture. By detaching one’s self both from self need and self interest, and looking more towards what actions are my duty, you have then become empowered by knowledge. It is by using this knowledge that will lead people into doing the correct things. In one of the teachings Krishna touches is on caste and how he created people in four different classes, he then goes on to talk about how people must commit actions according to that class. I believe that the overall message that Krishna is trying to give the readers is that, the best actions are those that dutiful and are disciplined.

Throughout the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna advocates detached actions of individuals. Krishna states, “When a man is unattached and free, his reason deep in knowledge, acting only in sacrifice, his action is wholly dissolved,”(54). By being unattached and free, a man’s soul is not connected to his body in anyway. Instead he believes that his soul will never die, and continue multiple lives. By this statement, Krishna believes that if a man’s soul is attached to himself that man believes he is only going to have one live to live. Krishana believes that actions that individual makes are just for the betterment of that person. He believes that by completing any action that man is doing it to benefit himself in anyway, and not think about anyone else. However, Krishana believes being unattached to your body is the way every person should live their life. A person who is unattached from his body is more willing to sacrifice themselves, and believes that their soul will live throughout numerous lives. An unattached person is also okay with whatever comes in the due course of their life because they know that there will be another one to live. “Content with whatever comes by chance, beyond dualities, free from envy, impartial to failure and success, he is not bound even when he acts.” Krishana wants unattached action because that means that person is more willing to sacrifice them self. The person knows he has more than one life to live, and he doesn’t stay attached to his one life and body.

Actions: Good and Bad

There are two ways to make an action, attached and detached. If an action is attached, it is based on a physical thought that is outside of a person's caste. An example of this would be for a potter to act in the manner of a soldier and go fight in a war for some person notion of revenge or glory. Krishna looks down on this type of action. However, Krishna also looks down on not acting at all."A man cannot escape the force of action by abstaining from actions" (page 43). The type of action that he supports is detached action. A detached action is an act based on a person's job and or caste and doing it because it is the person's job, such as a soldier fighting when his country needed to be protected. The believe in Krishna's era was that a person was not the puppet master of his life, instead he was the puppet. A person was to follow the responsibilities set aside for his caste and should not try to move out of that caste in life. Only through reincarnation could one move up the caste system. The desire to move out of one's caste through want is seen as "evil" by Krishna and that the desire is what creates conflicts. This point summarizes the deepest levels of violence in the world today and in Krishna's time. A person or a group of people want or do not want something and see it as wrong. Then they desire to obtain or destroy it. This desire causes them to fight and thus start wars and battle's between people. Without desire there is no conflict.

Action

In the book The Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna gives lots of advice and tries to direct Arjuna in the right direction on the topic of action, desire and knowledge. Where the story stands, there are two sides set up for a war and Arjuna is not seeing the whole logic of war. Lord Krishna tries to persuade Arjuna to go to war and gives him a lecture on action. Lord Krishna goes on to talk about how any type of desires can get in the way of action. What he is trying to get across is the fact that, one should not perform action with self in mind or perform an action, just to perform an action. On page 44, the third teaching, he insists on performing action as a sacrifice. He says, “Action imprisons the world unless it is done as sacrifice.” But the big question is what those sacrifices are. The way I interpreted it was that those sacrifices are consequences. At this point in the story right now, the consequences are the ugly side of war. The consequences are the side of war that Arjuna does not want to see or hear about. Lord Krishna also continues to talk about discipline in action. I believe he is trying to say that once you action, you must have discipline to really accomplish happiness and possibly even nirvana. He goes on to say, “…Men of discipline perform action with body, mind, understanding, and senses for the purification of the self. “ I believe what Lord Krishna was trying to say in these three teachings was that you must be willing to sacrifice and accept consequences of actions while also having discipline of action to really be your true self.

Jackie wrote a blog and this is how it went

Krishna's avocation of detached action is motivated by what should be the determining factors of what the action's origin through his views. He reinforces early on that "A man cannot escape the force of action by abstaining from actions" (43). He believes that the detachment of action will allow the performer to complete the duty that they have been designated, and that when people become too convoluted, they lose sight of their initial purpose. AS he expresses, people sometimes think too much of themselves as individuals, and when people believe, "I am the actor" (47) they lose the ability too see the nature of the system in action, therefore disrupting it. This sense of detachment enables the follower of this credo to be free of overhanging responsibility, and allow the individual to view themselves and their actions as a part of the larger collective whole. Without this world view, individuals may not fulfill what they are obligated to do, therefore distorting the grand picture from what it was intended to be.

Necessary vs. Detached

Krishna presents what appear to be two differing views on action. However, looked at more closely, Krishna’s teachings on action are not contradictinig, but rather complementary. Firstly, Krishna does not teach that action should not be performed at all, as Arjuna first thought. Rather, it is “necessary action” that must be performed, for “it is more powerful than inaction; without action you even fail to sustain your own body” (3:8). Therefore, there must always be action in order to continue living. However, every other action beyond those that are life-sustaining must be defined as “detached action.” According to Krishna, actions must not be done with the motive of desire or any other emotion, as Krishna specifically asserts, “Know it here as the enemy, voracious and very evil!” (3:37). Put even more simply, action done for the sake of the senses should be avoided, for the senses are the foundation of desire that corrupt action. “The senses…are said to harbor desire; with these desire obscures knowledge and confounds the embodied self” (3:40). So, if action is not to be completed through desire or senses, then what is left is action performed solely through the self. This self, the inner persona, stripped of all constraints placed upon it by desire and tempting senses, is the fully realized person that is capable of going through life entirely without needs or wants. The simple existence is enough to sustain, and elicits actions that are not corrupted by selfish desires but rather by inspiration of Krishna and the forces of the universe.

When Krishna discusses detached actions he is talking about transcending actions. Krishna tells Arjuna that actions should only affect physical things. Thusly, because one should be detached from physical things in order to reach inner peace, one must have detachment in actions as well. Your soul should transcend the material would and not be affected by actions. Krishna says: "When a man is unattached and free, his reason deep in knowledge, acting only in sacrifice, his action is wholly dissolved."(54).

This says that any action taken should be for the soul, like sacrifice. He says "Many forms of sacrifice expand toward the infinite spirit; know that the source of them all is action, and you will be free." (55). Krishna is saying that only if one is disciplined and comes to detach oneself from physical action that they will be able to freed from the physical world. Actions taken should only be out of duty, not for yourself. Because it is not for yourself that you carry out these actions, it is others. Krishna wants people to detach themselves from the physical world so their soul is free to be at peace with itself.

Just do It

Krishna preached of performing “detached actions.” What he meant by detached actions could be up to interpretation, but many interpret the saying as performing actions not for the glory, praise, or possible recognition but to perform them because you are supposed to or want to. Krishna said a man of action “does nothing at all, even when he engages in action.” By saying a man “does nothing at all,” he means the man doesn’t think about what he can get from the action or what he might get out of the deal. By saying a man of action, he means a man who is helping to make the world a better place; the word action doesn’t refer to simple, effortless tasks such as taking out the garbage or changing a light bulb. Some may look for praise or recognition for these tasks, but Krishna is saying that you should never expect rewards for your actions or it makes your actions impure and takes away from their value.
He wants actions that truly do deserve recognition, but he doesn’t want the one performing the actions to expect that recognition. Actions of duty such as serving your country, family, or bettering yourself for the value of others by expanding your knowledge or other such things seem to be on his list of honorable and projected actions. Krishna also said, “When ignorance is destroyed by the knowledge of the self, then like the sun, knowledge illumines ultimate reality.” When you can detach yourself of the ignorance that your actions must be rewarded, you will be a happier, better person.

Unattached

By detached action Krishna wants mortals to act without any attachment. He wants actions to be completed for their own sake, not for the benefits that will be reaped from the action. Detached action is also the realization that no action is individual, that “actions are all effected by the qualities of nature.” (47). This detachment from the action itself, the realization that the action is not yours, but caused by nature, is what Krishna means by detached action. Krishna is not telling Arjuna not to act, simply to remain separated from the action. Krishna says that a man of action “does nothing at all, even when he engages in action” and “performs actions with his body only” (54). These two lines show that while the body will be performing the action the mind will stay completely separated and detached from the action itself. When performing a menial task the mind tends to wander and not be focused on the task at hand, which is what Krishna means by detached action, and what he thinks all actions should be like. With his definition of detached action Krishna also tells Arjuna how to achieve this state. “Renunciation is difficult to attain without discipline” (60), Krishna says. With discipline one can realize that “’It is the senses that engage in sense objects’” (60), not oneself. The senses are separate from the person themselves, and so even when one thinks one is acting, or feeling, or anything that involves the senses, it is not the person themselves who is doing the action, but the senses. Detached attachment is the separation of one’s mind from one’s body and realization that while the body is acting the mind is free and unattached.

Blog Assn #13: Krishna on action

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Tuesday, Sept. 30, 8 PM:

Krishna seems to advocate some sort of notion of detached action. What exactly does Krishna mean? What sort of action does he want? Support your answer with texts.

Krishna

When humans and gods intermingle, the gods tend to shower their wisdom on us mere mortals, showing us the way to a better life, or to salvation. That is exactly what Krishna does to Arjuna. He shows this distraught mortal how to heed the actions he takes (or must take) to fulfill his life.

Arjuna does not want to fight this impending battle, yet Krishna tells his he must. Krishna explains his moral duty to this battle, but he also explains another reason he must fight. Explaining the meaning of action, Krishna shows how action must be used as a sacrifice to preserve the gods, and order of humanity. He goes on to say that “…without action you even fail to sustain your own body” (44). All Krishna is saying is that we, as human beings, need to be prepared to sacrifice our own ideas for those of the greater good. By achieving the greater good, society will flourish, the gods and goddesses will bequeath us with good fortune, and chaos will not rule the world.

It is this idea of the greater good Arjuna does not seem to be able to grasp. He does not want to fight because of his duty to his family. A duty Krishna says he is not breaking because when one is killed, he simply moves to a new location, but is not dead. Krishna emphasizes the importance of action because, he says, it is a test of one’s character, to see if he will continue with the action (which is the correct path), or if he will not follow through with the action (which shows weakness).

Personally, I’d be listening to the god who seems to have things all figured out. But Arjuna is truly torn between his duties, and Krishna is bound and determined to mock this attitude out of Arjuna. Action is necessary to fulfill his duty, and Krishna will hopefully get his to see this.

Important to Author

There is one theme in this reading that appears be important to the author of this text, and that is one’s caste and duty. In the story Arjuna explains to Krishna that he does not want to fight in this battle and that it is wrong to do so. Arjuna goes on to say that fighting someone and killing them leads to social disorder and corruption, and Arjuna does not want to fight. Krishna then explains that it is Arjuna’s duty to fight. This sense of duty comes from the caste system and fulfilling one’s role in that system. If Arjuna was not to wage this battle, then people would slander his name for not following his duty. If Arjuna does a good job in his present life of fulfilling his duties, for his caste, then his next life is projected to be good. In Hinduism it is essential that everyone executes their duty in order for their next life to be a good one or for them to move up in the caste system. Obviously, as you move up the caste system, the better your life is, and assuming that one would want their life to be better, duty would become that much more important. By completing your duty one is able to be spiritually disciplined.

Sacred to the Eyes

I believe the authors of The Bhagavad-Gita care about doing the right and just thing in the eyes of a higher power. Before every action, every one of the characters contemplates the action in the eyes of their god or their superior. For example, while the two sides are preparing for battle, Arjuna is raising questions about why the two sides would fight and raising objections for the two sides. In the middle of epiphany he brings up examples of doing the right thing in certain situations. In one of the situations he goes on to say, “ If Dhritarashtra’s armed sons kill me in battle when I am unarmed and offer no resistance, it will be my reward.” To me, that is an example of doing the right thing because it is an unfair fight. Also, in the second teaching Arjuna is talking again about instances of right and wrong. He goes on to say “It is better in this world to beg for scraps of food than to eat meals smeared with the blood of elders I’ve killed at the height of their power while their goals were still desires.” Also, I believe sub-consciously the authors also care about respecting ones opponents. To me, this virtue or belief goes together with doing the right things in the eyes of a higher power. Before they do battle, they really do contemplate how everyone would feel and how all parties would be affected as shown in quotes above. When you put all three of these virtues together, I believe you get what the authors care about.

At the beginning of the Bhagavad-Gita an epic battle is just minutes from unfolding; when Arjuna realizes the men he had been all too eager to kill just moments ago are men with lives of their own. The author of the Gita obviously family in high esteem; in the first chapter alone the phrase “family duty” must have been repeated ten times. Lord Krishna calls Arjuna a coward for not plunging into battle, but Arjuna retorts his argument saying killing his fellow kinsmen would impose on him a grief so powerful that he would lose his will to live. Once again the author constantly repeats family related words like son or brother, stressing his high regard for family. Krishna then responds to Arjuna explaining to him that by not fighting the shame he would bring himself would outweigh his grief. Arjuna is comforted by Krishna, that if he fulfills his moral duty in battle he will be rewarded in the afterlife. The reason the author gives us strong arguments for both Arjuna and Krishna’s beliefs is to show the reader that even a great warrior like Arjuna can have doubt. The wise Krishna, although he was slightly mocking Arjuna, still gave him solid advice about fulfilling his moral obligations.

The authors of The Bhagavad-Gita cared mainly about the effects war has on the warrior and his family. When fighting in battle, Arjuna loses the will to fight when he sees the opposing warriors. He realizes each one of those men has a family and does not understand how one can justify killing a person because it leads to the destruction of a family. He said, “I do not want to kill them even if I am killed” (28). Arjuna believes that each man has a duty to his family and by going to war he is violating his duty, “When the family is ruined the timeless laws of family duty perish; and when duty is lost, chaos overwhelms the family.” The death of the man causes chaos in the family which corrupts the women, and causes disorder in society. Arjuna believes that men who go to war violate his family and their duties and causes that man to go to hell. Arjuna is saying that by a man being killed in battle it does not only affect his family, but instead it has a ripple effect on society.
The authors of The Bhagavad-Gita care about the effects of war because it was a vital issue centuries ago when it was written. The authors wrote it to tell people how to conduct themselves in their lives. By including Arjuna and his beliefs on how war violates families duties, the authors must care about the effect of war on families.

Duty

While reading the Gita, Arjuna’s spirit and Krishna’s desire to do good showed me what the authors truly cared about. The authors cared about fulfilling your duties, yet fulfilling them with dignity and honesty. While in war Krishna became hesitant once on the battle field because his conscious came into effect and his dignity made him unable to hurt another’s kin. He sums up his emotions in these words, "My limbs sink, my mouth is parched, my body trembles, the hair bristles on my flesh"(27). However Arjuna makes him realize that he must fulfill his duty, and makes him feel more comfortable in doing so by reminding him that, “Death is certain for anyone born, and birth is certain for the dead;…the cycle is inevitable.” So in saying these things, Krishna can fulfill his duty, and fulfill it with dignity by doing it with no fear or regrets.
Another form of duty the authors seemed to greatly care about was duty to your family. While contemplating killing another in battle, Krishna is mostly upset because he knows how much it will upset their family. Yet not only does he know it will upset the family, he realizes it will mess up the families cycle and form of responsibilities they all must fulfill. You have a required duty of respect and admiration for your family, and a duty to uphold their honor, and the authors of the Gita greatly revere that duty and believe that it should be greatly upheld at all points in life, even on the battlefield.

Duty to Family

Of all of the lessons in the reading from the Bhagavad-Gita, the author cared most about one's duty to family. As the warriors are riding into battle, they stopped and talked about how they could not see how they could kill their own family. The soldiers spoke about how family was the sourse of their happiness. A person acts with what will make them happy, regardless of their differences of point of view and values. To these people, their duty to their country is obviously very important to them, even more so than their duty to their religion as they rode into battle on their holy day. The value of their duty to country is even less important to them though, than their duty to family as shown when the soldiers stop and try to get the opponents to stop their attack and turn back as they are "cousins." While they may not be cousins in the modern sense of the word, in the time period that the Bhagavad-Gita was written they may have been considered cousins and therefore they found them to be as important as actual family. The story is written in such a way that it is easy to tell what is important to the author and to the people of the time. The most important things to these people seem to go in the order of family, country, and religion. Since the importance of family directly relates to happiness and thus the key to a person's actions, it is the most important thing to the author of the Bhagavad-Gita.

Death

When I began reading The Bhagavad-Gita, Arjuna’s concern with the welfare of others made me think of One, the song from last Monday in class. In the song, the main character talks about the horrors of war and how he is unable to escape even now that he is back home since people treat him differently. Arjuna is similarly concerned about the horrors of war. When he reaches the center of the battle-field, he is overcome by the fact that people will be dying and he no longer wants to kill for the sake of a kingdom. However, the author’s true intent becomes clearer as the story goes on. Arjuna needed this moment of self-doubt in order for Krishna to come in and explain that there was nothing to fear in war. The argument made by Krishna about death and war parallels that found in the end of Apology. When Socrates addresses the jurors who voted to acquit him, he says that he has nothing to fear in death since it is either annihilation or transmigration. Either way, he reaches the conclusion that a good citizen has nothing to fear in either life or death. Krishna makes this exact argument to Arjuna, saying “As a man discards/worn out clothes/to put on new/and different ones/so the embodied self/discards/its worn-out bodies/to take on other new ones” (Gita 35). Since the belief in reincarnation exists, Krishna tells Arjuna that he has nothing to fear in killing others since they are going to come back in some form. This shows that the authors were truly concerned with people accepting their own death as well as the death of others as a blessing rather than a curse. Because of Krishna’s teaching, the authors wanted to show that death is not something to be afraid of, but to welcome with open arms if it is thrust upon you.

Based upon evidence in the text, the authors of the Bhagavad-Gita were concerned with family.
It easily can be said that most people care deeply for their family members, and wouldn't do anything to harm them intentionally. Like-wise, when Arjuna sees his intimate kinsmen on the opposing side of battle, he nearly loses his will to fight. He becomes so upset he says "My limbs sink, my mouth is parched, my body trembles, the hair bristles on my flesh"(27). If the thought of killing in war wasn't bad enough, having to oppose his family is just too much. Arjuna plainly states "I see no good in killing my kinsmen in battle" (27). Arjuna would more readily give up everything good that could come of battle (like land, kingship, and other riches) if it meant he would have to kill family members.
This shows that the authors really cared about family-bonds and honoring kinsmen. The authors wanted to show that nothing should come between a family, not even a war. They considered it a terrible thing to act wrongfully against ones family. This is even seen today when one observes the close ties between family members. Even if you aren't thrilled with your family members, the saying goes that "blood is thicker than water". Thusly, as Arjuna puts it, the authors would "lament the great sin we commit when our greed for kingship and pleasures drives us to kill our kinsmen" (29).

An Afterlife

The authors in The Bhagavad-Gita believe that the time on earth is mainly about achieving the sacred duty every human has to the gods. It is shown when Lord Krishna says to Arjuna "Look to your own duty; do not tremble before it; nothing is better for a warrior than a battle of sacred duty." Lord Krishna is trying to explain to Arjuna that fighting in this war is his sacred duty and that fulfilling his duty should not scare him but excite him. Lord Krishna also says "If you fail to wage this war of sacred duty, you will abandon your own duty and fame only to gain evil. People will tell of your undying shame, and for a man of honor shame is worse than death." He is trying to also say that if you run away from what you are destined to do, you will be looked down upon for the rest of your life. Lord Krishna even goes as far as saying that the shame Arjuna would have would be worse than death. Lastly he explain to Arjuna that if he embraces his sacred duty and fights in this war he will come out better no matter what outcome. "If you are killed, you will win heaven; if you triumph, you enjoy the earth." The authors believe that you have a sacred duty to complete while on earth, so that you will have a good afterlife and go to heaven.

Earthly Pleasure

The author of the Gita care most about distancing oneself from earthly pleasures in order to find peace. In the first teaching, Sanjaya quotes Arjuna as saying “I seek no victory, or kingship or pleasures. What use to us are kingships, delights, or life itself?” (27). Arjuna is distancing himself from the earthly pleasures winning the battle would give him, showing that the authors also believe you should stay away from earthly pleasures, which results in peace. Arjuna could not find peace if he won the war and a lot of people died in the process, so he is giving up on earthly goods and pleasures altogether. Another example of this comes in the second teaching. Lord Krishna says “Be intent on action, not the fruits of action…” (38). By saying this Lord Krishna is advising Arjuna to stay away from the earthly goods and instead to focus on deeds, and eventually he will find peace. Lord Krishna also says “When he renounces all desires and acts without craving, possessiveness, or individuality, he finds peace.” (42). This shows that the authors care about relinquishing earthly goods to find peace. The advice that Lord Krishna gives Arjuna is really advice that the author of the Gita is giving to the reader. The author believes that once all earthly goods are given up peace will be found. Arjuna gives up the opportunity for earthly goods by refusing to fight and kill, which will give him peace of mind; and Lord Krishna consistently gives advice that amounts to relinquishing the hold earthly goods and pleasures have on us. Only once we have nothing can true peace be achieved.

Family vs. War

Two values that the authors of the Gita seem to most care about are presented separately in the two assigned readings of the text. In the first teaching, there is a large emphasis on familial duty. According to Arjuna, to betray friends is a “crime” and family destruction is a “sin” (28). Friends, family, and even teachers, are considered with the greatest honor and care that can be provided. Arjuna continues to expand on the importance of family duty by explaining that “when duty is lost, chaos overwhelms the family” (28). Familial duty is also described as a “constant law” (29), which suggests that without the strict adherence to familial duty than society itself would not be able to function.

In the second teaching, there is a strong emphasis on the duty to sacred war. “The coward is ignoble, shameful, foreign to the ways of heaven” (31). Here, to not battle is considered an affront against the gods, for “nothing is better for a warrior than a battle of sacred duty” (36). However, this duty is in conflict with family duty, for in Arjuna’s situation to follow duty in battle would be to go against his duty to the family. Here, the authors place an emphasis on the permanence of a person (in contrast to the impermanence of Gilgamesh), and use it as reasoning that Arjuna would not be killing his family for the soul does not begin, nor does it end. The permanence of the soul itself allows for the two duties towards family and towards war, when appropriate, to coexist.

Bible?

The main message I can see from The Bhagavad-Gita is that the authors seem to be huge fans of peace and the status quo. They believe that there is an eternal soul that leaves one's body when they die. The first two lessons seem to deal entirely with Arjuna's inability to know what to do in the battle, as if he has just had some revelation about the soul that leads him to question all his motives and turns him into a blubbering mess. The story establishes many key Hindu traditions from the beginning, such as the love of peace and the different obligations one has in life, so I am lead to suggest that the entirety of the author's values rely on the metaphysical being applied to the physical world. That is to say that they are basing their conscious decisions in the real world on a gamble that man actually has a soul and what we do in this life matters in determining that souls fate. It is almost reminiscent of the Bible, not in true physical characteristics or the nature of the story but rather the idea that man should be subservient to his brother and lay down when it comes to fighting. Both books look toward a higher good and power for direction, instead of looking to themselves which is an interesting connection, as to the best of my knowledge the ancient Indians had no contact with the Israelites. Either way both stories make it sound as if this world is just some sort of test and playground; that man should act ut of selflessness in order to benefit his soul and "true self".

What is Required?

The authors of The Bhagavad-Gita care about duty – the duty between being a man, and a spiritual being. This duty can be contradictory at times, like during a battle. We see Arjuna fighting with this split of duty – he is torn between being what a man should be, and being a spiritual creature.

Arjuna desires to be a man who fulfills the battle-hardened requirements any man at this time should. He wants to win glory for his name, and his people. He wants to be a hero who goes down in history (much like Gilgamesh…). He yearns for all this, yet one problem stands in his way: the men whom he must fight are relatives. This poses the other issue of spirituality. He is a man who must follow what the gods have decreed. This decree is to not kill family. So Arjuna is torn between fulfilling what society requires him to do, and what the gods/spirituality requires him to do.

Lucky for Arjuna, his wise charioteer, Krishna, is there to give him counsel. Krishna reminds Arjuna of what else the gods said: “Death is certain for anyone born, and birth is certain for the dead;…the cycle is inevitable…” (35). What Krishna is saying, is that reincarnation will happen no matter what, so even if Arjuna must kill a family member, he is not truly dying; for he will be reborn, and life will continue. Therefore, Arjuna is encouraged to fulfill his mortal destiny and his spiritual destiny will be taken care of.

The authors show this very well. Their message is: fulfill your mortal destiny, even if it causes you grief; for your spiritual life is already taken care of. This lesson is something I believe we could all learn from.

Blog Assn #12: What does the Gita author care about?

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Sunday, Sept. 28, 8 PM:

Recall yet again the clip about Joseph Campbell reading a city by its skyline, with the skyline offering some indication about what its builders care about. What does the author of the Gita most care about? Offer evidence and arguments for your view.

The most obvious fruit of the Socratic Method is expressed by Socrates early in his speech to the jury. He tells the jury that his mere discussions with people were never meant to harm anyone, but merely strip them down to who they really were. Socrates speaks first of the pompous politicians who claim the ability to speak on any matter because of their wisdom. He claims that the only reason he had discussions with them was to help them realize how little they really knew about the matters they proposed to speak on. An ultimate example is given right before Socrates makes this point. He tells the jury that he has not prepared a speech, but chooses instead to speak on only the matters he knows, claiming that a prepared speech at his age would not be a proper representation of himself. This is discrete attack on his accusers since they have all prepared their attacks in order to seem as if they know what they are talking about. Ultimately, we hit a limit within the Socratic Method. This comes at the end of Apology when Socrates essentially proposes the death penalty upon himself. He uses the same logic as always to deduce that if he accepted prison, he would just be at the will of a warden. If he gave up his practices, he would be impious and should be dead anyways. Because he uses the same logic to determine the penalty for himself, he comes around to the fact that the only proper punishment would be death since the other options would end up being worse than death, assuming that his presumptions of the afterlife are correct.

Socratic Method

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates uses the Socratic Method of education. He uses questions that are posed to make the person being question critical thinking. This way of teaching does not give answers, but makes people think for themselves and develop what they believe the answer should be. It stimulates intellectual curiosity and causes people to be a better thinker, along with developing a stronger view of their beliefs. This method of teaching is extremely beneficial in the learning world today. It makes students think about answers to questions for themselves by not already having the answer put into their heads. This method can be beneficial because it causes people to examine how solid their own beliefs are, but in some instances I do not think it is all together beneficial. This teaching method is extremely indirect. Socrates never gets right to the point, but circles around the main issue. For the learners, this approach is extremely frustrating. Even though they are interested in learning what he has to say, they aren’t completely learning. By just asking questions and having the students develop their own answers, they aren’t learning anything at all. His method develops critical thinking, but it does not make them develop a wealth of knowledge. You are not able to elaborate and think about a topic that you do not have any prior knowledge about. If the students have the prior knowledge, I believe the Socratic Method is an extremely beneficial way to teach. It makes students test their knowledge along with develop critical thinking.

Outside of the Box

In all societies, people agree to a set of moral standards and agreements in order to better fit in. These standards may occasionally be stretched in minor ways to make amendments as time goes on, but overall they will remain the same and it is frowned upon when other people go outside of those set boundaries. The socratic method teaches people to look beyond the set boundaries to find out with they truly believe in and what is truly right for them. This can break societies apart. That is why the socratic method is often used sparingly and was frowned upon greatly in the ancient societies. The socratic method has both its strengths and its weaknesses like any other form of thought. It is a very open minded stream of thought and often can be used to find a person's true beliefs. The socratic method can also be used to predict how a group of people will react to certain stimuli based on what they find to be good and bad. While this may be helpful, it can also cause conflicts within a society. "A lone wolf will destroy any organization." If too many people are only thinking about themselves and are not focussing on the group as a whole, the entire society will collapse. Also in order to use the socratic method, one must question a person very deep. This can be intrusive and very annoying for people. With both negatives and positives, the socratic method should be used sparingly.

Socratic Method

In societies there is usually one ideology that is built into the minds and thoughts of the people who are connected to that culture or society. Ideologies are used to keep in a “box” of thinking and to keep conformity amongst the society. The oppressors of society don’t want anyone to question their beliefs and their ways of thinking. The Socratic method of teaching is to think outside of that box and to not conform to the “normal” way of thinking, Socrates wants you to be able to fight the majority. This teaching method asks individuals to question why they think the way they do. What truly makes them believe that something is more right than something else? The reason that so many people are attacking Socrates is because they are scared, they are scared, one, of someone who would actually challenge their beliefs and the way that they think, and two, of a way of thinking that is different. Socrates is simply refuses to be oppressed by the common way of thinking in his culture. The pros of this style if thinking is no longer having to be stuck in the “box” of ideology, and being able to find your own truths. I don’t think that there are any really cons to this method of teaching, people are going to get mad at you and attack you, however, I wouldn’t see this as a bad thing, because they are only attacking you because they are scared.

Socrates had a very unique way of teaching, which the founders of CIE obviously hold in high esteem whether or not that was their original intention. CIE confronts students with texts that they may or may not agree with, not unlike what Socrates does in his arguments. Socrates’ method of confronting his pupils with arguments that force them to think outside of their comfort zone is practically the basis of CIE. Socrates has a way of making the weaker argument the stronger, as well as not taking things “above him” for as they are.” Even in his apology in front of the Athenian court Socrates is giving advice to his accusers. The Socratic method of teaching has huge benefits in both sciences and philosophy, however when it comes down to mathematics it falls short. It is frankly impossible to teach a student the quadratic equation by debating with them what a square root means. However I strongly believe that guided arguments that are orchestrated by an intelligent professor not only force you to think, but also help you learn along the way. Even though it seems like all Socrates has to offer is his ability to teach his students to ask questions, I strongly believe this is the foundation of learning. Solutions are not even researched unless a question is imposed; so by teaching his pupils to ask questions he is in turn encouraging them to find solutions for these problems.

Socrates

The Socratic method of teaching, when you break it down, is a simple method of asking questions and getting one to really think about what he or she just said. It is taking a statement made by one of his students, Socrates introduces an argument to that statement, Socrates then backs up his argument, then persuades his student he or she is wrong and tells them the truth. Socrates insists that the first step to knowledge was admission of one’s ignorance. In the story The Apology, he gets in front of a court room to defend himself and admits he has never talked in a courtroom and will talk the only way he knows how. Naturally, this type of teaching could have both positive and negatives. I believe the benefits and fruits outweigh the cons. Some of the benefits are the student will really learn to think deeper. This type of teaching is used in CIE class where we take a look at issues from all sides and learn to think deeper. Also, the student will learn to define his or her own arguments and really have stronger arguments. I also believe that Socrates asked a lot of questions to get into his students heads. To me, he did this so he can really look at what his students are thinking and point his students in the right direction. However, I believe this could also be a downfall. Socrates asks a lot of questions and makes his students think, but does he really teach them? I do not necessarily think that would fall under the definition of teaching. Do not get me wrong, I am not taking anything away from Socrates but he never really introduced anything new to his students, and many would think that is not teaching.

Socrates teaching methods

Socrates has some very good teaching methods and others that not even the great Kelly Sorensen could understand. Socrates is without question a extremely wise man and has the intellect to explain/ teach a student about almost everything. He also isn't the kind of teacher that is willing to spell it out for you, but you will need to think to come up with the answer. Of course Socrates knows to help his students along the way but he makes sure you understand his reasoning behind what he says before the answer is given. Also Socrates has very good morals. You see this whenever he refuses to beg the jury for mercy in court and when he refuses to give a punishment to himself for the fact that he thinks he hasn't done anything wrong. However, Socrates has one extremely large flaw in his teaching style. He will spin your mind in circles so much by the end, you will have no idea what is going on. This is seen the best just throughout the entire conversation with Euthyphro in the first section of the book. There is not one person that can say they were not confused by what Socrates was saying and where he was going at one time or another. I think that Socrates was probably one of the greatest minds ever and that he was an excellent teacher to his pupils, but he was very hard to understand at times.

The Socratic method of education has several benefits and deficiencies. Firstly, while the method is very intensive in its questioning of reason and motive, it allows for the formation of well-supported opinions as the ‘teacher’ forces the clarification of every presented opinion until the answer originally sought for is reached. Socrates uses such a method in his ‘apology,’ or defense speech, as he questions Meletus as to the motives of his accusation against Socrates. Socrates in fact proves that Meletus has no care for the young he claims to defend in prosecuting Socrates, nor does he have substantial proof that Socrates does not believe in the gods, which is the gravest indictment Socrates faces. Another benefit of the Socratic method is the ample amount of opportunity the student has in understanding the discussion at hand. Socrates is very favorable of repetition and clarification of his statements and the answers he wants. Again, this is illustrated in the dialogue exchanged between Meletus and Socrates. In Meletus’ silence, Socrates continually repeats his questions and clarifies them for Meletus’ benefit so he may better understand what Socrates desires of him.

An unfortunate deficiency to the Socratic Method is it often results in the formation of unnecessary enemies solely for the innocent goal of achieving knowledge. Those who perceive themselves wise are affronted by Socrates’ attempt at examining their knowledge, and when they are found to be less intelligent, they take offense at the degradation of their reputation. Had this drawback to the method not existed, than Socrates would not be making an Apologia in the first place.

Imagine a cool title here

The distinctive style in which Socrates teaches his pupils is both intriguing yet blindly ineffective on some levels. He is very open and comfortable with not being the most intelligent man in the room. He even mentions that he possesses human wisdom, not an all encompassing comprehension for the world and all its working. Instead of directing his students towards the correct answer, he instead guides them to walk down an internal path to discover the answer by themselves. Instead of stating his opinions for those around him to absorb, he simply tinkers and defies the preconceptions of those he talks with, helping them uncover motivations and rationalizations that they may have been too distracted or oblivious to realize initially. This is the fruit of his teaching, his ability to allow people to learn and grow. He does not preach or condemn, he just directs and questions. This dialectic style is one of the most famous characteristics of his method of teaching. He uses rationality and direction to guide the thoughts of his listeners to bring them to places they hadn't yet considered. This can also be shown as the hindrance of his methods. He never assists his students, nor does he openly illuminate the dark places in their mind they have completely neglected. He helps them rummage through their attics but never introduces anything entirely new. Although is an excellent guide, he isn’t much of a trail blazer.

Teaching can be hard to do

Socrates was a man of great intelligence, anyone could tell you that. However what made Socrates a great man was his willingness to teach others and expand his knowledge. His way of teaching is often ridiculed, and it does have it downfalls, however it also has its strengths.
Throughout my education I have heard that repetition is the best way to engrave something in your mind, and Socrates almost always repeats himself if he feels there is any confusion. Another thing I have heard for many years is that you need to think deeper than what is obvious to have a thorough understanding of the material. Socrates lives to make people think not only twice but at least three times about their opinions and the knowledge that they have to make sure they have a complete understanding of it. Lastly, Socrates’ method forces you to work hard, and while it may not sound appealing or fun, hard work is the only way to truly gain and keep knowledge.
However, Socrates does have downfalls in his teaching method. As said before, he was a very intelligent man and being so intelligent he would use many words that would confuse his students. Also while explaining things he would commonly talk for a very long time and by the end his students would sometimes forget the beginning. Lastly, not many people wanted to do the hard work that the Socrates model of teaching took, and this greatly deteriorated his spreading of the great knowledge that he had.

Enemies Everywhere

The Socratic Method has both benefits and deficiencies, as shown in Apology of Socrates. The method Socrates uses is very good at establishing his point. He leads the person he is questioning to the answer he wants to hear and waits for them to agree with it. “Now come here, Meletus, tell me: do you not regard it as most important how the youth will be the best possible?” (73). BY using leading questions like that one Socrates doesn’t really give the person he’s talking to any other choice but to agree with him. He then takes the agreement with the statement and asks the person more questions so they end up agreeing with two contradictory ideas, there’re discrediting them. By asking Meletus questions he ends up with the idea that Meletus thinks “’Socrates does injustice by not believing in gods, but believing in gods.’” (77). This makes Meletus look foolish and discredits him completely, which is a benefit of the Socratic Method.

Alas, there are deficiencies to the Socratic Method as well. By making the person he is talking to look foolish, Socrates is making enemies, which is why he has on trial in the first place. Even Socrates says it: “…I tried to show him that he supposed he was wise, but he was not. So from this I became hateful both to him and to many of those present.” (70). Socrates’ method makes people look foolish, leaving many with a vendetta against him. Being right will do him no good if he will not have any allies when he is done. The method Socrates uses is so convoluted that hardly anyone can keep track of what is going on and the confusion makes them hostile. That is the main deficiency to the Socratic Method – the way it tends to give Socrates enemies.

Socrates has a very unique teaching style. He is indirect with his questions, but in the end he always pulls his point together.

When attempting to educate the public on a certain point, Socrates questions people as to why they think their view is right. This teaching style is effective because it forces people to have a deeper understanding of the things they hold as truths. Like when he is talking to the jury, they are pushed to think of what they personally believe about the issue. This is also a beneficial teaching style because it put Socrates in control. He knows what questions he's going to ask, and he knows what he's trying to get at; however the person he is trying to teach is kept on their toes, and forced to think about what they are going to say before they say it.

Yet, this teaching style can be detrimental because of how indirect it is. People may become confused or frustrated because Socrates takes a round-about direction to his point. Also, this may not be a good teaching style because Socrates makes a lot of connections that involve thinking 'out of the box'. This could also confuse people, or lead them to believe he is just connecting a bunch of junk for the sake of his point.

This teaching style has good properties and bad. But it is also a very popular teaching style. It reminds me of the interrogation/jury teaching style of Henry Drummond from Inherit the Wind. He led the jury and the witness in a circle of questions in which he taught them the importance of the freedom to think.

Pushed to the Limit

The Socratic method when it comes to education is extremely useful for opening up the stereotypes and society induced traditions when used on a child or person drowning in the dogma of civilization. It is also one of the greatest ways to win an argument, as Socrates demonstrates in Euthyphro and when arguing with Meletus in Apology. It is a great method to combat the linguistic logic fallacies commonly thrown out by rhetoricians and makes one appear to have authority in the conversation. It instills values upon a student that stick with him for the rest of his life to constantly be questioning everything in life and every one's motives, which grants huge advantages in this dog eat dog world of the modern world. At the same time the Socratic method has extreme flaws as it is incredibly easy to talk around as long as the debate is based on an opinion, rather than the statement of an absolute fact which a Socratic thinker will surely be able to turn around. Also if one is to argue with this thinker, one must not be too eager to commit to some belief, especially established by the opponent, but rather state their beliefs as explicitly as possible so there is no confusion. As much as Socrates bashes the linguists who simply use fancy language to get their desired results in an argument, he does the same thing with the principles I just mentioned. So despite being fallible in an argument based on these reasons, the Socratic method is just that: a method. After one is taught to think so intricately about every subject of the world for a certain amount of time they eventually become used to it. Socrates stated himself often in Apology that he did not know that much and admitted to it which made him wise. So Socrates can essentially teach the skill of questioning, which does not take that long to teach in all honesty. Then once that skill is passed on he has nothing left to offer as a teacher. This is the same plight as any trade smith who takes on an apprentice, eventually the apprentice equals the master in said skill. So his method is not eternal and can be argued against, and Nietzsche even went onto say that someone so preoccupied in breaking down and examining every little aspect of life is detrimental to one's life. Though I do not abide to all of my philosophical heroes teachings, like this one, he brings up another weakness in the Socratic method, that it could possibly limit the action of its applicators. Though that is kind of a long shot, it could indeed be another weakness. Overall though I would say that the Socratic method is extremely beneficial for a mind, especially a young one, and instills critical analytical skills that could easily be lost without it.

Oh Socrates...

Socrates is obviously a very intelligent man. He knows his stuff! Yet some of his teaching methods ore helpful and others are not.

His helpful teaching methods are the way he explains everything. Although this could sometimes be seen as a vice, it usually helps the reader follow his argument, much the way it helped the men of Athens follow the argument in his time. The way he introduces his apology is very clear cut, and there is a formula he follows to explain what he is defending and why. He tells the men why he is there, he explains how he did nothing wrong, he goes onto explain how he will defend himself, and then he clarifies the accusations brought against him. This formula helps the reader understand where this wordy man is taking his long winded speech.

Which leads me to my next point – wordiness. Socrates is, next to Charles Dickens, the wordiest man I have ever read. Whether that is just how the Greek translates over, or if that is how he actually spoke, makes no difference to me. He uses big words, which shows his intelligence, but baffles the reader. He also talks for a very long time! It is sometimes hard to follow what he is saying later in the defense because it is so long winded. He also uses examples (which can be good) far too often. And they confuse the reader at times. For example when he uses the stories to, I assume, illustrate his point, it is a little off topic and thus jars the reader a bit.

Wordy or not, this man has made a great influence on humanity, and poses questions we all must encounter at some point. So I will suck it up and read his wordiness, and look on the bright side: I’m learning something.

Blog Assn #11: Socratic education

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Thursday, Sept. 25, 8 PM:

What are the fruits and benefits, and what are the limitations and deficiencies, of the Socratic method of education? Use _The Apology_ (pp. 63-97) to argue for your view.

Vices and Virtues

In this section if Plato’s Euthyphro, we can see that there are different virtues and vices that Euthyphro possesses. We can see that his virtues consist mostly of being pious and through this piety he believes that he gains the virtue of justice and integrity. Her demonstrates this when he states that he was willing to turn in his father to the law so that justice may be done. He believes that these things are right because it is what the gods want and what the gods believe to be right and just. But as Socrates shows us, Euthyphro also has vices. Euthyphro doesn’t really know why his actions are just, he just believes that his actions will please the gods, but Euthyphro has already admitted that the gods fight over many different things so how can he truly base anything off of what the gods believe to be right and just? Euthyphro’s vice is his misunderstanding od his own actions. He has no knowledge of where his virtues come from so that begs the question, is he really as pious as he makes himself out to be? I believe that Socrates is trying to show us that if we don’t know why we believe certain things to be right and just, then are we really as great as we believe.

Euthyphro does not seem to have any solid virtues or vices during his argument with Socrates. Using his method of questioning, Socrates causes Euthyphro to waver several times on his convictions. I believe that Euthyphro’s virtues and vices are one in the same. What some would call a good devotion to the gods since he was insistent that he must prosecute his father, others might call unmatched arrogance. I would tend to call this on the side of a vice since he is assuming to know what the gods want when he is nothing more than a mortal. Another virtue that could be portrayed as a vice is his need to teach others. It would seem like a good thing that he wants to help others understand the world and understand what is right and what is wrong. Yet again, it is a vice because he assumes to know better than the other citizens about the goings-on between gods. While Eutyphro becomes humbled by the end of his debate with Socrates, he still does not start to realize that he might not have all the answers, which is one of the points of Socrates’ argument. This is a severe vice of Euthyphro that cripples any of his virtues that he might have. Upon closer examination, most of the virtues in Euthyphro’s argument come back to his one vice of arrogance. When he presumes to know what the gods want, it would seem like good conviction, but it is truly arrogant to make such an assumption. When he presumes to have a definition and answer to all of Socrates’ questions, it would seem like having a clear idea of his morals. However, upon closer examination, it appears that his ego surpasses his good traits every time.

Much like the video we watched on the first day of class about how you can judge a city by its skyline, by judging Euthyphro’s “skyline” we can judge who he is as a person. Euthyphro the second he meets up with Socrates wants to know Socrates’ business, even before Socrates speaks Euthyphro hints that he has a lawsuit in front of the King. I believe this first statement shows the true character of Euthyphro, which is far away from the pious man he makes himself out to be. If most people were forced to prosecute their father, the last thing they would think about is bringing it up in a conversation on the street. Euthyphro on the other hand practically pines at the chance to tell Socrates his business. For what you may ask? I believe Euthyphro was so insecure about his own piety that he is willing to show off the fact that, even when prosecuting his father was involved, he stuck to the letter of the law. However insecure he may be, after a little bit of baiting on Socrates part, he went into a full blown thinking match against Socrates and actually made a few strong points. The best quality of Euthyphro however, was that between the argument and the prosecution of his father, he always stuck to his virtues no matter what. Euthyphro was not a bad man even though Socrates made him out to be a fairly simple character, he was simply a device for Socrates to prove his points with.

Virtues and Vices

Throughout the first section of the Text on Socrates, Euthyphro shows that his virtues are pretty much perfect when it comes to justice. He is willing to turn in his own father, for what we think would be man slaughter, so he receives his punishment for his wrongdoing. This is what should happen in the perfect world, there should be no bias for anyone that commits a crime and even if they are family members it is your duty as a citizen to turn them in. However, this is not the way that things should happen. This would also be Euthyphro's vice, he almost takes justice to literaly and doesn't realize his obligation to protect his family. It is not just a plain black and white decision that he killed someone, I have to turn him in. To some point I think that you can't get yourself involved if your family member were to be a mass murderer. Then I think that you have to turn him in because of the severity of the crime and obviously who ever did those crimes was not in the right place mentally. However, I think that you have a obligation to your parents for the fact that they gave birth to you, raised you, and took care of you. Also without them you wouldn't exist. I think that Euthyphro needs to step back from the situation and look and see what he is actually doing by prosecuting his father.

In Plato’s Euthyphro, many of Euthyphro’s virtues become vices. He bases his virtues off of piety, and social standing. By Euthyphro prosecuting his father for murder it shows that his social standing is a main concern. This is shown by his worrying that his family and his status will be polluted if there was a continued relationship with his father. “For the pollution turns out to be equal if you knowingly associate with such a man and do not purify yourself, as well as him, by proceeding against him in a lawsuit” (44). This prosecution of his father led to one of Euthyphro’s vices. Prosecuting your father is an extremely impious act, something that would be condemned by the Gods. “Yet they are angry at me because I am proceeding against my father when he has done injustice, and so they contradict themselves both concerning the gods and concerning me” (47). However Euthyphro’s virtues and vices combined are his belief in piety. By prosecuting his father, the act of him prosecuting a wrongdoer is virtuous, which in fact is extremely pious. However, Euthyphro had to weigh what the Gods would believe with more because prosecuting his father would be impious- a vice. Euthyphro does not have his own set of morals. Instead he follows the Gods beliefs. That is a vice for Euthyphro because he picks the best situation that he thinks would be the most beneficial at the time being. By prosecuting his father, he is able to live an unpolluted life, but at the same time he is doing an immoral practice.

Virtues and Vices

To say that Euthyphro was virtuous or had many vices would be inaccurate, for I really don’t think he has either in the pure sense of the definition.
Euthyphro seeks to be virtuous. He wants to find a quality of being good and righteous, but he has not yet accomplished that. At the beginning Euthyphro would have definitely defined himself as virtuous, but as the story progresses Socrates shows him that he is not one to decide whether or not his actions are virtuous or pious. By the end of the discussion, Euthyphro needs to rethink what his definition of piety is and if his actions really constitute him as a pious person.
While this would definitely be considered admirable and noble, I wouldn’t say that it is virtuous. He does have his flaws and shortcomings, but I wouldn’t consider these vices either. As a vice is defined as an immoral or wicked habit or characteristic, Euthyphro is almost the opposite of this. He wants to find what is right in the world so he can carry out what is pious. Sure his sense of piousness is flawed, as Socrates quickly points out, but that only encourages him to rethink his values. Euthyphro is fairly flexible and not as defensive as some might be if they were presented with such strongly supported opposition to their views.
Euthyphro, of course, has his good and bad points, as any normal person would. However his ability to think through problems and edit what he was so sure was correct to begin with is definitely commendable.

Euthyphro's Justice

Euthyphro is a man with a very powerful sense of justice. This justice, however, is very hard to distinguish and explain. Justice is definable by every person and what they can accept with their personal beliefs as just and unjust. That is why there is so much conflict in the court of law. However, laws must be laid down in order to give justice to multiple people. These laws must be interpreted by those around. This is where the fault and the value of Euthyphro lies. In his point of view, as well as mine, anybody who takes the life of another is responsible for being punished for that sin. This value is also where his fault lies. He believes that all people should be punished and judged in the court of law and that the court of law should decide their punishment. The concept that Euthyphro fails to realize is the punishment of one's own self. His father will forever feel responsible for the death of that worker, regardless of whether he deserved to die or not. Euthyphro also fails to recognize the differences between points of view. He seems to believe that everything is black and white and that it is the same black and white for everything. Socrates tries to break him of this by using the example of fighting gods to convince him of the differences of points of view. In the end, Euthyphro is the same as an ignorant man, completely ignorant of other points of view and completely confident in his own view of justice. The point of a court is not so that one can boast about his own view of justice, but look at his view and anothers and decide on an appropriate punishment with regards to both views of justice, as well as, the laws set down to govern the people.

Virtues and Vices

By definition virtues are the conformity of one’s life and conduct to moral and ethical principles. Euthyphro, by this definition, has perfect virtues. In the story, Euthyphro contemplates bringing his own father to trial for a murder. I believe anyone who can bring his own father to trial for a murder is obviously a supporter for doing the right thing in terms of moral and ethical principles. Socrates asks Euthyphro a question if he would have a problem bringing his own father to justice. Euthyphro responds by saying, “Its laughable Socrates, that you suppose that it makes any difference whether the dead man is an outsider or of the family, rather than that one should be on guard only for whether the killer killed with justice or not…but if not to proceed against him, if that is, the killer shares your hearth and table.” We have talked about it multiple times in class and I have decided that I could not bring myself to do that. Only a man with the moral principles to do the right thing no matter the circumstances could do that. Vices, by definition, are an evil, degrading or immoral practice or habit. I believe that what could be a man’s virtues, could also be a man’s vices. In my eyes, I look at bringing your father to trial as a vice. I believe that is evil and Socrates, his teacher, was second guessing his decision. He brings up the question, “You don’t fear that by pursuing a lawsuit against your father, you in turn may happen to be doing an impious act?” I guess it is safe to say Socrates and I are on the same intelligence level because we are thinking the same thing. An act like that would be wrong to me.

Euthyphro, like us, has many virtues and vices. He tries as hard as he can to follow these virtues. Yet, a lot of the time it is his virtues that lead to his vices. Euthyphro has a virtue of doing what is right, or pious. In his mind he has it set what is pious and what is impious. However this virtue becomes a vice when it leads him to prosecute his father because he believes it is the pious thing to do.

Another virtue of Euthyphro's is that of knowledge. He cared enough about knowledge to learn and educate himself as much as he could about the gods and the subject of religion. Even as he is talking to Socrates, he is willing to pass on some of his knowledge to Socrates by informing him about what makes something pious. Yet, this also turns out to be a vice for Euthyphro. His love for knowledge leads to pride. Euthyphro talks about how the jury will respect and listen to him for the mere fact that he is Euthyphro and is all knowledgeable about the gods and pious things. And Euthyphro tells Socrates that if he tells the jury he learned from Euthyphro that they will listen to him. Socrates then plays off this vice as he questions Euthyphro about piety...which turns out not to be so simple for "Mr. Knowledgeable"-Euthyphro.

A strange man

Euthyphro was a man of many conflictions. He talks of being pious, yet he is prosecuting his father, he claims he is of the highest intelligence, yet Socrates must always question him, and his virtues can also be his vices.
In a list of his virtues, you can without a doubt say he is a righteous man. He is persecuting his own father because it is what he feels is his duty as a citizen. Another one of Euthyphro’s virtues is his confidence in his knowledge. He is being questioned by Socrates, who is known as one of the most intelligent man of the era, and Euthyphro feels confident enough to teach him and try to explain things to him. One of his last virtues is his patience. While Socrates was questioning him, many would have gotten annoyed with his constant questions but Euthyphro simply answered them as best as he could.
Yet he also has his vices, one of those vices being that he was to righteous. Persecuting his own father because it’s the right thing, not many people could do that to someone so near and dear to them. I feel this is a vice because he isn’t showing compassion or love which are vital emotions to living a happy life. His confidence in his knowledge is also a vice because it makes him arrogant and overly self-assured and makes him sound extremely arrogant, especially while talking to someone like Socrates. Lastly, his patience only lasts until he feels disrespected or challenged, and that should not be the case with such a virtue.

Vices and Virtues

Euthyphro is a character that at first seems to have very little personality. Throughout most of the play he is merely agreeing with what Socrates says, which doesn’t reveal much about him. However, the few times he does speak a person with virtues and vices is revealed. Euthyphro’s main vice is his agreeableness. By agreeing with everything that Socrates he is showing an unwillingness to think for himself. He lets Socrates lead him along and seems unable to make up his mind about what piety really is. Agreeableness is not a vice in itself, but the extent to which Euthyphro takes it makes it become one. Another vice that Euthyphro has is his ego. Euthyphro is so convinced that what he’s doing is right. “…the pious is just what I am doing now…”(46). This unshakable belief in himself is a huge vice. With such a belief comes a feeling of superiority that would make him a very undesireable person to spend time with. Socrates destroys Euthyphro’s definition of piety, which humbles Euthyphro because Euthyphro believed that he knew everything about piety, and Socrates humbled him.

Despite the previous paragraph, Euthyphro does have virtues as well. Euthyphro is very concerned with Socrates and what the charges are against him when he finds out that someone is prosecuting him. This concern shows that e does care about others and makes him a good friend, always a virtue. Euthyphro also has a very strong sense of justice. “It’s laughable, Socrates, that you suppose that it makes any difference whether the dead man is an outsider or of the family…” (44). Euthyphro has such a strong sense of justice that he is prosecuting his own father for murder, because he believes that a murder is murder, no matter who the murderer and the victim happen to be. This sense of justice is a virtue because it allows Euthyphro to stand by his beliefs even when it must be hard, and allows him to help justice prevail.

Virtues and Vices

In the beginning of the text we learn that Euthyphro is a lawyer: “For surely you don’t also happen to have some lawsuit before the King, as I do” (41). Now, as the dialogue progresses, textual evidence would support the more common supposition that Euthyphro has little intellect, as Socrates forces him to reconsider all his arguments. However, his position as a lawyer denotes that Euthyphro is very intelligent. Euthyphro is also very grounded in what he discerns to be pious; in discussing with Socrates why he is prosecuting his father, Euthyphro answers that despite the position of his father, he will prosecute in the name of justice, for “not to proceed against him is impious” (46). This answer shows the Euthyphro recognizes indecision as a decision in itself, and doesn’t allow family ties to get in the way of a societal obligation.

Amongst these virtues, however, Euthyphro also has several vices. The most prominent of the vices includes what appears to be a lack of intellect, but rather, is an inability to formulate an opinion simplified enough as to satisfy Socrates. This may not even be a vice at all, just Euthyphro’s limited experience in having his opinion challenged, and Euthyphro has yet to gain the ability of quick thinking in defending his argument. As a result of this lack of opposition, Euthyphro does have a somewhat inflated ego. On multiple occasions, he tells Socrates, “I will also explain many other things to you…and when you hear them, I know well that you will be astounded” (48). But Euthyphro’s most obvious vice is his lack in vigor in defending his position. Socrates once rebukes him, “Come, you blessed man, exert yourself” (55), but Euthyphro’s missing enthusiasm is best illustrated by Euthyphro’s final line: “Some other time, then, Socrates. For now I am in a hurry to go somewhere, and it is time for me to go away” (61).

Sophomore

Euthyphro is a very interesting character as he is essentially a manipulator, but not a malicious on. He is a Sophist, so he has mastered his language and rhetoric which can make him appear to be rather knowledgeable without bringing up any facts. His personality is very interesting as he honestly believes that persecuting his father is the right thing to do so in reality he is motivated by justice which is a virtue. He would like to do the right thing based on how he understands the gods would like him to act. He also decided to challenge possibly the wisest man in Athens to a debate (unknowling perhaps, but he argued nontheless) so he has courage and self confidence in his actions, which are also virtues in my eyes. Despite being essentially Plato's antagonist in the dialogue, Euthyphro really isn't that bad of a guy. He is only a pawn using rhetoric to try to convey and justify his feelings as facts which is not necassarily a bad thing, just misguided.

He was no angel, however, as many of his virtues were also vastly overemphasized to the point that they became vices themselves. Euthyphro was extremely arrogant to suggest that he knew the value of something as abstract as piety and was just asking to be hammered by a philosopher as wise as Socrates. It could also be argued that he was extremely arrogant to try to hold his own with Socrates in a debate, but I cannot fault him for trying. Perhaps his greatest vice was misusing his linguistic ability and turning his wise tongue into that of a manipulator; a man who had no place pressing charges on his father yet planned to use his wit and ability to send his own parent to prison or even death. This too can tie into arrogance as he seemed to get too greedy in the social by claiming he was acting in the name of piety to Socrates. While a common man would probably say "Oh yeah, piety, yeah good reason," Socrates instead calls his bluff. Another vice could be that he was unintelligent and too proud to admit it. To make such a claim as to know the definition of piety and then to commit to a view with a man such as Socrates as he did on page 45 is just foolish. If he was clear in his reasoning he should have based it upon opinion and simply stated that he "was doing what a good citizen should in his opinion." Therefore, wherever the argument went the overwhelming authority would still be the opinion of Euthyphro. Any Sophist or logical would likely be able to spot that quite simply which leads me to assume that the young man was arrogant and a fool. Euthyphro wasn't necassarily a bad man by any means, he had some traits of a good character and did not seem to show any malice but did have his share of vices, even if they were careless.

Blog Assn #10: Euthyphro's virtues and vices

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Tuesday, Sept. 23, 8 PM:

What are Euthyphro's virtues and vices? (I mean here the character Euthyphro himself.) How does the text show you what his virtues and vices are?

Meet Euthyphro

For being brow-beaten, Euthyphro is a tolerant person. He likes Socrates, and he questions Socrates poses. He enjoys the mind-games presented, and he uses his mind to attempt to come to conclusions. Although he does not always come to these conclusions the way Socrates would like, Euthyphro tries very hard to please this smart man. This attempt on Euthyphro’s part is seen when Socrates gives him a question to work with, then makes him refine his answer again and again. Even though Euthyphro ends up returning to his original answer (which was vague), he gives his answers his all; he gives it his best shot.

On the down side, Euthyphro believes many things he cannot prove. For example, Socrates questions the gods’ wars’ and Euthyphro does not. Euthyphro believes the gods are truly up there, fighting amongst themselves, and playing their petty games. Where Socrates questions this, for he cannot believe that is what they are doing if they exist, Euthyphro believes it without questioning. It is this pattern that leads him to give answers he firmly believes in, but is unable to back them up.

Being young (as in, younger than Socrates), Euthyphro still has much to learn. He seems to accept this, and want to further his education. Although a believer in things he cannot prove, his attempt to live a full, moral life shines though.

Honor Code

I do not believe an honor code would be effective at Ursinus College for many reasons. First and foremost, I do not believe it would be effective. To provide an example, at my old high school we had an honor code and I can say from experience that it did not work out at all. We had to put “I did not receive or give any aid on aid on this test or quiz” and then sign it. I found it quite ironic that as soon as we walked through the door, I would hear at least three or four students talk about how much they shared answers. Right then and there, I realized an honor code could never work and saw there will always be students to cheat. Other schools talk about how much their honor code works or how well respected their honor code is but I am willing to bet there are a good amount of students that cheat and either don’t tell anyone or cheat in some in some type of way. I believe it could only lead to get students in trouble. There should be a trust between an institution and their students but I do not believe this is the answer. To me, it goes back to the old saying that, “if it aint broke, don’t fix it.” I believe that is the case here at Ursinus. We do not have a huge problem of cheating and I believe that we should focus time and energy elsewhere.

Honor Code

I strongly believe that in order for the honor code to work here at Ursinus huge obstacles would have to be overcome. In theory the honor code sounds like a great idea, having the students’ police themselves would not only save professors from having to “baby sit” during testing, but it would also help save the school money by eliminating the need to buy expensive anti-plagiarism software. Like communism, I believe this would only work in theory; no matter what students are going to cheat. Our society has in part helped continue this trend with the mentality that, if you aren’t the best then you are no one. When it comes down to it we are in college to learn, and even though getting good grades is always nice, they don’t necessarily mean you have learned something. If we wanted the honor code to work we would have to eliminate the competitive nature of people which is quite frankly impossible. Not to mention the notion that snitching out fellow classmates is frowned upon by the general population. I believe instead of putting the efforts into making the honor code work, the school should put that effort into beefing up anti-cheating measures. Time is money, and I feel like the school is wasting time just by discussing an idea that already hasn’t worked in the past. If the school is looking for a way to reduce cheating on this campus then I believe the best route is to make the punishments harsher for those who are caught cheating.

Honor Code

I think that the idea of an honor code is great and I also think that the students decided their own rules at their school is also a very good idea. However, a very good point was raised in class last Friday, and that was that we as college students and young adults should not need an honor code. The teachers should be able to trust us, especially when we are at a small school at Ursinus, that has a small community, where the teachers get to know us better as individuals. At a school like Ursinus, the students should want to better themselves and not feel like they need to cheat both in the class and themselves. Especially since we are supposed to be seen as responsible young adults, we should not feel that it would be appropriate to cheat. We are no longer is high school, there are now even higher expectations for us as students. We are supposed to be getting ready to enter the real world and preparing to get a real job. We should know by now that cheating is only a detriment to us as scholars. We as older students should want to be able to succeed in life without cheating. If you really want to be a doctor, get into medical school, and help people you should not cheat. If you were to cheat then you would be either indirectly or directly (in the future) be damaging your patients. By this time in our lives we should not be sacrificing our integrity.

Ursinus Honor Code

Ursinus College does not need an honor code for a variety of reasons. Although it sounds like a great idea, it just wouldn't work. When teachers would go out of the room for a second in high school the students would all start to share answers until the teacher came back into the room. Also in college, the students should be trying to learn and understand what they want to do in life and not just try and get the grades for getting grades. If you cheat in college and go into the professional world and try and do a job you don't really know how to do, then you will be fired and in some professions sued. I think that there will be students that would take the honor code to heart and there would also be students that don't care and it would make it easier for them to cheat. I think that society has put such an importance of just finding any possible way to get the grades that they have taken away from just learning the material. If there was not so much importance on grades, which is understandable because that shows you are doing good in school, and learning I think there would be no problem with the honor code working and being useful.

Trust

When I sat down to write my application essays for college, I zoomed through several of them. Many were easy to answer, such as Swarthmore College’s famous essay, “Why Swarthmore?” However, I hit a roadblock when I came to answer Haverford College’s essay. They asked applicants to comment on their honor code. The professors and president of Haverford are very proud of their Honor Code, however, I found it very hard not to criticize the idea of the Honor Code as I wrote the essay. I have always felt that it is a student’s personal responsibility not to cheat. The only person that is harmed by cheating is the individual. The professor does not lose anything and the other students are encouraging the behavior by helping the student to cheat. Personally, I believe that by joining a class, you are agreeing to do the work and learn the material yourself. The professor should reserve the right to fail you on a test if he or she catches you cheating, but there should not be any action taken past that. If an Honor Code had to pass, I would say that it should simply give professors the written power to fail a student for cheating if sufficient proof is given. I believe that a greater environment of trust is created without an honor code. With an honor code, I believe that a rift is created between students and professors since I believe that an honor code inherently says, “I do not trust you.”

At Ursinus College I believe an honor code should be enforced. Not an honor code that is extremely trusting of its students, but an honor code that intensifies punishment if a student is caught. Numerous students at Ursinus College have extremely high academic expectations for themselves. Many of them will do whatever they can to achieve a grade they’re aspiring - including cheating. Even though they are good students, their cheating is unfair to themselves, and the students who are honest about their grades. An honor code could withhold Ursinus’ academic integrity.
When I went to visit McDaniel, they had an extremely trusting honor code. The professor could leave the room during an exam and expect the students not to cheat. At Ursinus, this type of honor code would not be able to be enforced. It would intensify cheating, and cause the students to have grades they are undeserving of. At Ursinus, we need an honor system that will administer stricter punishments for those in violation. The honor code would be written on every test, paper, and assignment a student hands in promising it was their own work. The student would be aware that if caught cheating, strict punishment would be inflicted. Along with an honor code, students, faculty, and staff of the college would be a part of a council that would strictly enforce the code. They would decide what punishment is necessary for the student’s actions. If that type of honor code was enforced, and students knew harsher punishment would be inflicted if caught, the cheating at Ursinus College would decrease. The honor code would help the college’s academic integrity withstand.

Honorable Mention

I believe that Ursinus is a college of suitable caliber to support the use of an honor code. The school strongly encourages personal responsibility and independence, two integral ingredients for having a successful honor code put into practice. If the school enacted an honor code, the students could be held to further standards of independence and would be held even more accountable for their individual successes. For example students could take tests home and complete them in lower stress environments, and the honor code would hold them to standards such as not cheating or using unauthorized aid. The students at Ursinus were selected because of their ability to excel and the school‘s expectations of them being able to learn and grow in the already established community of the school. These capabilities make the students prime subjects to be allowed the use of an honor code. If the code were enacted, there would be very straightforward expectations to meet, and if explained and understood the entire community would be allowed to run even more smoothly than it already does. Using a code would make the lives of students and teachers alike less stressful, and since the students are responsible enough to handle such prospects, I believe that the use of a code would be a positive addition to school policy.

The Point of an Honor Code

Every college, including Ursinus should have an honor code. Every student should be trustworthy and not cheat no matter what the situation but there would need to be strict rules to punish those who did not follow the honor code and rules for what was and was not an honor violation. Students helping each other with their homework or with studying would need to be okay because that is a good way for people to improve in an honest manner. A person can't cheat by studying. They will either know it or not know it. However, giving answers to another student or a general overview of the quiz before, after, or during the quiz would definately be an honor violation. It gives an unfair advantage to certain students because they will know the contents of the quiz before they take it. Just rules will not give the honor system strength. In order to enforce the honor code, an honor board would need to be installed to look at the situation with unbiast eyes. This honor board would need to be made of both students and professors with everybody having equal say on the board so as to have a fair advantage so that neither side could try to rule the board. The punishments would have to be severe. The lightest violation should be a suspension. A good school does not need cheaters in it so they should be weeded out as soon as they are caught. With only the top students with the top characters at Ursinus, it would become truly a top college.

Trust vs. Obligation

An honor code is an improvement to any campus, including Ursinus, in that it promotes trust and morality amongst students and faculty alike. The question though, is whether the honor code takes a disciplinary or open-trust form.

In the example of Haverford College, every test is taken without the supervision of a professor. In my opinion, no matter how long the honor code has been in place, you cannot trust everyone to follow the code. There will always be people who thwart the agreement for personal gain. In effect, this totally undermines the trust necessary for an honor code to remain effective. It also diminishes a student’s rightfully earned A in comparison with the cheated A. So not only are those who ignore the code cheating the school for ignoring policies, but more specifically the students who worked honestly for their grade.

I do not advocate the honor code that doesn’t require students to have supervision during tests. However, the more disciplinary version is more likely to be effective. Though not everyone will ever obey the code, establishing one at Ursinus College increases the probability that a student won’t cheat had there not been an honor code. It was mentioned in class that Ursinus has attempted to establish an honor code in the past. The proposal was vehemently rejected, but not without its implications. The anger of the students towards the proposition suggests though that they would obey the honor code once signed, and then be forced to turn in friends when cheating. So, in the event that an honor is established, a majority of Ursinus students may be capable of respecting its requirements.

Honesty and Integrity

Does Ursinus College need an honor code, no, but should it get one, yes. While many of the students here are good, honest people who signing the paper would make no changes to their actions, there are some who the paper would probably make them think twice about what they were about to do. Some may say that it’s just a piece of paper and it really doesn’t make a difference, however read Anya’s post about her cheating happy friend who began to change his actions. While we may not like to admit it, the human race takes great pride in our honor and what others think of us, and due to that pride we want to do things that make us honorable, or not do things that make us dishonorable.
In our honor code we need to specify exactly what cheating is and what the punishment for doing it will be. Cheating is either taking another students answers for a graded assignment and getting credit for material you did not know, or using another students work as your own such as having a friend write your paper or do your homework. The punishment for all forms of cheating should be an automatic zero as a graded assignment and community service hours. Community service because it would teach them to work hard and honestly towards a goal. That is the honor code that I feel would work well at Ursinus College if one was to be instated, which would be a good idea.