The Philosophy Journal

An Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy and Religion

Editors: Andrew Rehfeld, Timothy J. Chatman, and

Daniel J. Vecchio, Ph.D.

The Philosophy Journal is an undergraduate journal publishing insightful

critical essays from undergraduates in the areas of Philosophy and Religious

Studies.

Essays are received by nomination from professors and reviewed by the

editors.

CONTACT: tchatman@cerritos.edu

The Philosophy Journal

An Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy and Religion

Volume 1

Issue 1

i

Welcome to the Spring 2017 issue of The Philosophy Journal, an undergraduate journal of philosophy and religion that was started at Cerritos College. We began this publication because we wanted students at the undergraduate and community college level to know that they can strive to produce excellent intellectual work and see it honored by publication. The journal consists of undergraduate papers recommended by department faculty. Publication provides a unique opportunity for philosophy students to showcase their best work and foster dialogue on meaningful topics in both contemporary philosophy and the history of philosophy. Through weekly symposia, our guest lecture series, and our program’s collaboration with Areté—the Cerritos College Center for Reading & Writing in Philosophy—the Department of Philosophy is committed to preparing capable philosophers. In addition, each year, the department awards its Bloomfield Scholarship to the student who has written the best philosophical essay at Cerritos College.

The journal’s editorial team is committed to the position that the study of philosophy is more than learning about problems, objections, replies, names, and movements. Majoring in philosophy develops the capacity of students for introspection, reflection, dialogue, and making disagreements productive and conversations meaningful. It empowers students to change both themselves and society. The idea that an important goal of enquiry is to address the needs of the whole person is reflected in the Cerritos College Altruism Club, a volunteer organization designed and housed in the department that, among other things, leads efforts to gather reliable data on and meet the need of student hunger on campus.

With this issue, our editorial team has expanded to two other colleges. We have seen that the opportunity to have their essays published motivates students to work harder, to inquire more deeply into the questions we explore, and to better express themselves in writing. Publication also gives them a record of accomplishment to put on

ii

applications for transfer, for scholarships, for employment, and should they decide to pursue it, for admission to graduate programs.

Please visit PhilosophyJournal.org for more information and an electronic version of the journal.

Timothy J. Chatman - Cerritos College Andrew Rehfeld - Barstow Community College Daniel J. Vecchio - Victor Valley Community College

iii

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS................................................................................ i

ADAM ALI Euthyphro and the Apology: A Mission Defined............................................................... 1

DANIEL COLIN Socrates’ Philosophical Mission......................................................................................... 7

MICHAEL K. GILL Cultivation of Arête........................................................................................................ 14

PAOLA GOMEZ Socrates’ Mission Represented in the Apology and Euthyphro.......................................... 21

ROLANDA JONES Evil: Who is Responsible for it?...................................................................................... 28

NAHYUNG KIM Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism.......................................................... 45 LAWRENCE LIM The Purpose of the Philosopher........................................................................................ 58

ANTHONY MELENA Ignorance, Truth, Legacy................................................................................................. 64

JACQUELINE MENDEZ Socrates’ Mission............................................................................................................ 71

ALEJANDRO PACHECO The Philosopher’s Mission............................................................................................... 78

GABRIELA REYES A New Way of Thinking............................................................................................... 84

SHADY SAID Socrates’ Philosophical Mission....................................................................................... 92

1

Euthyphro and the Apology: A Mission Defined ADAM ALI

Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology are two sources of our understanding of

Socrates’ personality and teachings that are of central importance. The former

describes a dialogue that occurred soon before the trial and the latter contains

Socrates’ speeches right before and immediately after his death sentence.

Arguably, it might be the case that in these two works a reader meets Socrates

at the final point of his personal development where summarizing his life and

his mission as a philosopher is particularly appropriate. From these texts, it is

evident that Socrates saw a philosopher’s mission in utter commitment to the

truth and developed a system of views and methods that are intended to serve

it even better. This mission was carried out by using his famous method and

had a two-fold goal: to serve god and to serve the society.

The sophists became famous for the fact that they faced interlocuters

while taking a pose of know-it-alls, well-steeped in the fine arts of rhetoric,

argumentation and the projection of confidence. Socrates, by contrast, took the

pose of a seemingly ignorant person who is only willing to learn. However,

there is a lot of ambiguity around that notorious "ignorance"; Socrates had a

significant influence on the development of skepticism. In fact, it is only

possible to speak of fracture: a) in relation to the knowledge of naturalists, in

which the moment of vanity can be found; b) in relation to the knowledge of

the sophists, which was often a mere affectation; c) against politicians and

Adam Ali

2

servants of various cults, who almost always demonstrated unstable knowledge

that lacked a critical view.

The mission of Socratic ignorance is deeper than a quest for moral

high ground in argumentation. The famous proclamation of Socrates — I

know that I know nothing — needs to be put in connection not only with

human knowledge but with divine knowledge as well. In comparing oneself to

God, who is omniscient, all the fragility and insignificance of human

knowledge is evident, including Socrates’ wisdom. In the Apology, in part

regarding the maxim of the Delphic Oracle that there is no wiser man than

Socrates, one finds this explanation:

… [T]he truth is, o men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. (Apology, 23a-b)

The contrast between the "divine knowledge" and "human knowledge" was an

important motif for Socrates, and this is what he reaffirms here. Finally, one

notes a strong ironic effect, as the listener is shocked by the statement about

the original ignorance of Socrates.

The intention of Socratic ignorance was serving a greater goal. Apart

from apparent self-humbling, it was a stimulating part of his method for

opposing false doxa (opinion), or, to put it simply, his weapon in the crusade

against stupidity. The disproving and confusing of the opponent were a

destructive part of the elenchus, Socrates' method. Forcing the interlocutor to

Euthyphro and the Apology: A Mission Defined

3

admit Socrates’ ignorance, Socrates constrained the opponent to define the

object of study before proceeding to draw conclusions and highlight the

incompleteness and inconsistency of the opponent’s doxa. The process of

criticism then led to the moment when the interlocutor has no option but to

recognize his own ignorance.

It seems that at the time there were two groups of teachers: the truth-

seeking philosophers and those who taught argumentation and rhetoric. The

first includes Socrates, while the second were called sophists. The "dialectical

art" of the sophists was that of persuasion, the art of the dispute, an art of

reasoning aiming only at victory in the dispute and nothing else. According to

Plato’s texts, the purpose of Socrates had always been the truth, not a desire to

win an argument at any cost (regardless of truth or falsehood), as it was the

custom of the sophists to darken the subject of discussion, rather than

clarifying it. No wonder that the way of reasoning by which Socrates was

revealing the truth was called the Socratic Method. At this point, the

connection between Socratic ignorance, his method, and sophistry is evident:

the ignorance was an important part of the elenchus that was used to oppose

sophistry wherever it manifested itself.

The next question is why he was doing that. Arguably, it was Socrates’

way of fulfilling the god’s will and his divine calling, as well as a form of civil

service that would benefit the citizens of Athens. In Socrates’ proposal for his

Adam Ali

4

sentence, he explains why he keeps doing philosophy and why he will never

remain silent:

For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living - that you are still less likely to believe. And yet what I say is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you. (Apology, 37e-38a)

More evidence for the view that Socrates sincerely sees examining others as a

beneficial activity lies in his last request to his accusers. In the last lines of

Socrates' comments on his sentence, he says:

When my sons are grown up, I would ask you, O my friends, to punish them; and I would have you trouble them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing, - then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, I and my sons will have received justice at your hands. (Apology, 41e-42a)

From these passages, one can conclude that by practicing his method Socrates

was both fulfilling his true goal in life (affirmed by both the oracle and his

genius) and helping other people to achieve arête in their reasoning, and

therefore, in their minds.

We are now in a better position to define the mission of the

philosopher according to Socrates. Firstly, a philosopher must be consistently

committed to the truth even in the face of danger or death, not even

mentioning the inevitable prospect of continually irritating others. Socrates

compares himself to Achilles, who was aware of the inevitable end and still

Euthyphro and the Apology: A Mission Defined

5

chose not to live in dishonor, but rather to follow the virtuous path. Secondly,

philosophers have to carry the burden of intellectual honesty with themselves

and in their conversations with others. This requires constant self-examination

and the precise realization of one’s desire for knowledge. Philosophers cannot

afford to fool themselves by believing that they know more than they actually

do because, according to Socrates, such a life is not worth living. Mainly for

this reason, he despised the Sophists and all those practicing sophistry, as Plato

makes clear in both the Apology and Euthyphro. What is even more, it was a

reason for Socrates to accept his death sentence so calmly. In his reasoning,

since the judges condemn him to death as a punishment, they must consider

death to be a bad thing, which means they assume they know something about

death. For Socrates, that equates them to the Sophists. In contrast, Socrates

thinks of death as either neutral or good:

Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: - either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. (Apology, 40c)

He seems to even anticipate the possibility to examine Odysseus or Sisyphus,

“or numberless others, men and women too!” (Apology, 41c). A philosopher’s

mission is to debunk false doxa and expose the true character of or the hidden

truth about the premises that are in the foundation of a man’s or a society’s life

for the benefit of individuals and “the great and mighty and wise city of

Athens” (Apology, 29d). This is also evident from Socrates’ conversation with

Adam Ali

6

Euthyphro, where the philosopher undermines Euthyphro’s assumption that

he knows enough about what is right and wrong to condemn another person,

which is a civil matter in Athens.

Socrates saw the mission of philosophers in seeking the true and

opposing the false. All three parts of the mission – commitment to the truth

despite dangers, intellectual honesty, and fighting false reasoning – have two

features that frame them as essential to philosophers and the society they live

in. Firstly, they are rooted in one’s calling as granted by the gods, and by

responding to this calling, philosophers realize their true purpose in life.

Secondly, this activity, if conducted correctly, is highly beneficial for those

around a philosopher, which is an important inspiration for a citizen of a city-

state.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2009). Euthyphro. The Internet Classics Archive. Online. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Plato. (2009). Apology. The Internet Classics Archive. Online. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

7

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission DANIEL COLIN

The most influential philosopher of the 5th century BCE is a man by

the name of Socrates. His life and teachings are the foundation of Western

Philosophy. Socrates was dedicated to reasoning and the development and

investigation of the truth. Unpopular then, Socrates employed a strategy to

pursue the truth by using dialectic. Socrates was one to question everything and

anything less than the truth was received with more questions. Socrates never

wrote anything down, and therefore any dialogues and teachings are dependent

on Xenophon and Plato's accounts. This gives rise to the Socratic Problem.

What we do know, according to Plato’s Apology, is that Socrates’ divine mission

is a complex one. Using two of Plato’s written accounts of Socrates’ dialogues,

the Euthyphro and the Apology, we will examine Socrates’ belief that he must

pursue this mission. The goal is to try to understand what Socrates aimed to

achieve by practicing philosophy. Socrates’ divine mission employed Socratic

ignorance, method, and irony to lead individuals towards the truth, revealing

adequate reports of the nature of things and seeking absolute knowledge.

The Apology is not an apology in the modern sense of a request for

forgiveness. The name of the dialogue is derived from the Greek word apologia,

which translates into “defense”. Socrates’ mission has led to animosity from his

fellow Athenians, and he is on trial for doing what he claims is following orders

from god. To examine why Socrates is determined to continue this mission

Daniel Colin

8

regardless of any consequences, we must first understand how Socrates began

his philosophical mission. Socrates had a friend, Chairephon, who went to

Delphi and asked the oracle if anyone was wiser than Socrates. In the Apology,

Socrates is recorded as saying that Chairephon "asked if any man was wiser

than I, and the Pythian replied that no one was wiser” (Apology, 21a). Trying to

understand this “riddle”, Socrates was at a loss and goes to question someone

who was considered wise in Athens. After finding out that this man was no

wiser than he was, he thought to himself, “he thinks he knows something when

he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am

likely to be wiser than he to this small extent” (Apology, 21d). Socrates did not

just stop with this one man. He goes on to question politicians, poets, and

generals, among others, and received a similar experience with each one. What

Socrates derived from these dialogues was that he was aware of his own

ignorance rather than being completely wrong. This awareness of one’s own

ignorance is known as “Socratic Ignorance” and is the premise of Socrates’

mission.

Now that Socrates understood his mission, he began to roam Athens

on his quest to show the citizens how to reach the truth and arête (excellence).

As he describes it in the Apology, “I go around seeking out anyone, citizen or

stranger, whom I think is wise. Then if I do not think he is, I come to the

assistance of the god and show him that he is not wise.” (Apology, 23b) The

irony of this is that the only thing Socrates knows is that he does not know

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission

9

anything. He does not have any knowledge to put forward in his dialogues, but

he can dissect those who claim to have knowledge or expertize of a subject. In

the Apology, Socrates professes that “the unexamined life is not worth living for

man” (Apology, 37e). Socrates’ goal is to interrogate individuals and help them

achieve knowledge otherwise unbeknownst to them. Though it is an unpopular

characteristic to question everyone, Socrates means nothing but good

according to him. In Euthyphro, Socrates undermines Euthyphro’s knowledge

on what actions are pious. Socrates’ dialectical method was based on

conversation between two or more people who held different views and whose

goal was to reach a conclusion based on truths. Socrates guides the drive for

the truth with leading questions similar to those you still see asked in the

courtroom in the modern day judicial system. A typical Socratic inquiry would

typically start with a question like the following one. “Consider this: Is the

pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by

the gods?” (Euthyphro, 10a). During the dialogue, Euthyphro is brought to the

realization that he does not truly know the truth of the pious. The humor and

irony of this is that Socrates, a man that claims that he knows nothing, has

taught a man that believes he has knowledge that he in fact does not. Although

Socrates’ only purpose was to reach the truth, his counterparts did not seem to

enjoy or understand Socrates’ method of questioning, so much so, that they

often confused him with the Sophists.

Daniel Colin

10

During these times, Sophists were very popular but looked like

manipulators of the truth. In the trial, Socrates denounces the idea that he is a

Sophist and explains why he is not one. Let us first understand what Sophists

do and then describe the differences between them and Socrates. Sophists were

considered dangerous to justice and politics. Why is that? Sophists were orators

that used emotions, persuasion, and rhetoric to influence what people

perceived to be the truth. In other words, they were con-artists using any

means to win. On the other hand, Socrates did not want to win, but rather

wanted to identify the truth. Sophists were paid to teach their skills of oration

and did not care for the truth as long as they became victorious in lawsuits or

arguments. Socrates never claimed to be an expert in any subject and therefore

could not have charged a fee for any such teachings in those regards. In the

Apology, Socrates admits that he is often taken to be a Sophist, but he defends

himself and rebuts that idea. “I have never been anyone’s teacher. If anyone,

young or old, desires to listen to me when I am talking and dealing with my

own concerns…I do not converse when I receive a fee and not when I do not”

(Apology, 33a). He ridicules the Sophists and the young men who hire them by

saying, “to leave the company of these, to join with themselves, pay them a fee,

and be grateful to them besides” (Apology, 19e-20a). We can understand from

this that Socrates was not fond of riches and wealth, but his desire was to find

the truth.

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission

11

How committed was Socrates to his mission? In the Apology, he gives a

scenario where someone asks him if his philosophical life that has led to him to

possibly face death shamed him in any way? Socrates replies, “You are wrong,

sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the

risk of life or death; he should look to this only in his actions, whether what he

does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good man or a bad man”

(Apology, 28b). During the trial, Socrates was not there to get him some

acquitted, as any other man or Sophist would want; rather, his defense was

solely to speak and unravel the truth. He believed that alone would be

sufficient for his acquittal and that he would therefore make it out alive. He

declined the plea to seek exile from Athens or that he should stop practicing

philosophy. His commitment to the truth, sadly led him to death, but it also

exposed the faults in a deteriorating city with his teachings of the Socratic

method to find the truth. He implies this at the end of the trial by claiming,

“You did this in the belief that you would avoid giving an account of your life,

but...there will be more people to test you” (Apology, 39c).

To further understand it, we can look deeper into Euthyphro to

pinpoint and analyze some of the key terms in Socrates’ mission: Socratic

ignorance, Socratic irony, and Socratic method. The stage is set right outside of

the courtrooms in Athens, and a dialogue sparks between Socrates and

Euthyphro that revolves around piety. Socratic ignorance is displayed when

Socrates admits to Euthyphro that he is being charged with impiety. He flatters

Daniel Colin

12

Euthyphro about his knowledge of piety: “It is because I realize this that I am

eager to become your pupil, my dear friend" (Euthyphro, 5c). Reeling Euthyphro

into dialogue, Socrates begins his method of inquiry. Starting with Euthyphro's

definition of piety, “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious”

(Euthyphro, 7a), Socrates begins assessing the definition as not leave any room

for technical exceptions. Eventually, Socrates reveals that the new truths of

piety according to Euthyphro have gone in a full circle, and he explains to

Euthyphro, “Either we were wrong when we agreed before, or, if we were right

then, we are wrong now” (Euthyphro, 15c). After embarrassingly making

Euthyphro realized his ignorance, Socrates does not shame him and wants to

continue the dialogue, but Euthyphro evades him. The Socratic Ignorance here

is that Euthyphro believed himself an expert on what is piety, so much so in

fact, he was headed to prosecute his own father in a murder case. Socrates

exposes his ignorance, and the dialogue ends inconclusively.

Socrates’ role in Athens was not appreciated at the time, but it had a

profound effect on western philosophy. His mission still continues to this day.

Socrates’ teachings and method are a major influence in our world today, from

asking a student to dissect and analyze a chapter of a book in a writing class, to

asking a defendant in court in regards to the crimes committed. Socrates does

not ask questions to simply hear the right answers, but rather to lead

individuals towards the truth. He wants to ensure that students can justify their

answers with reasoning and knowledge. Socrates’ noble mission strived for

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission

13

arête in life and death. He would not accept anything less and would not

consider stopping his practice to save his own life. In the conclusion of

Socrates’ trial and life he states, “a good man cannot be harmed either in life or

in death, and...his affairs are not neglected by the gods” (Apology, 41c). Socrates

chose to commit himself to truth, and it cost him his life.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

14

Cultivation of Arête MICHAEL K. GILL

Plato, a philosopher, and student of Socrates, penned the Apology and

Euthyphro sometime after Socrates’ trial and death in 399 BCE. The Apology is

believed to be the most authentic account that has been preserved of Socrates'

defense of himself as he was being prosecuted. The Euthyphro, on the other

hand, relates a discussion that took place between Socrates and Euthyphro

concerning the meaning of piety, or that virtue usually regarded as a manner of

living that fulfills one's duty both to gods and to humanity. Within both texts,

Socrates advocates strongly for his philosophical mission, which is proving the

“truth”. Socrates defined true knowledge as everlasting, unchangeable, and

absolute compared to opinions which are time-based, changing, and relative.

He was convinced that true knowledge and moral virtues are inscribed within

the soul of every individual. Learning is, therefore, to cultivate the soul and

make one’s implicit understanding of truth clear. Socrates engaged in dialogues,

not to teach knowledge, but to awaken the soul of a partner. That is the

“truth” it is obtained by proving that someone knows nothing, or showing that

person their ignorance, which in turn will force the person to strive for

excellence or arête. Socrates uses the elenchus, better known as the Socratic

Method, differentiating between sophistry and philosophy, and how Socratic

ignorance can lead to Socratic wisdom to defend this mission.

Cultivation of Arete

15

The elenchus consists of four steps: the person he is talking to asserts a

thesis, which he calls into question immediately and targets it for opinions that

are blocking the truth. He then makes sure the person is sure about the answer.

Then he argues, and the person agrees, that these further premises imply the

contrary of the original thesis. He then claims that he has shown that the other

persons’ thesis is the same as the idea that started it revealing ignorance.

Socrates generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to

lack any concrete definition such as the piety, wisdom, justice. Socrates uses the

first step to get a claim or idea that allows him to begin the denouement of the

person’s claims. In Euthyphro, when Socrates first asks Euthyphro what piety is,

Euthyphro answers: “Prosecuting a wrongdoer, regardless of whether he is

your father or mother or anyone else” (Euthyphro, 5d-e). This is the claim that

allows Socrates to begin his method. The problem with this claim, as Socrates

points out, is that the definition Euthyphro has given is more of an example of

piety then a definition. It gives an image of what piety is, not a fact. He gives an

opinion, which shows that he does not understand what it is. He has an

opinion, but no fact, no deep understanding of it. The second step is putting

forward a question that follows the previous definition or claim. The questions

asked by Socrates must lead to a yes or no answer. The questions are asked to

find flaws in consistency. Socrates showed this in Euthyphro when he continued

to ask questions building off the first example given above. Socrates asks

Euthyphro, “Do you believe that there really is war among the gods?”

Michael K. Gill

16

(Euthyphro, 6b) He replies of course, and after some more talking Euthyphro

asserts a new definition: “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is

impious” (Euthyphro, 7a). The problem with this, as Socrates points out, is that

sometimes what is dear to some gods is not dear to all the gods. They often

quarrel and have different opinion on many things, so on this definition the

same action could be both pious and impious.

The last step of the Socratic Method is the most important, because

the questioned person comes to the realization that what he thought he knew is

not true knowledge. What he knew was just an opinion that changes with time

and mood. This is, in fact, the most important step of the Socratic Method

because it is this step in which the “truth” is discovered. The truth that the

person has no knowledge, and all they had were opinions that would change

depending on many factors. The way that Socrates uses the method in the

Euthyphro is the perfect example because he gets the person whose claim

started the argument to admit he knows nothing. This occurs near the end,

when the final version of the definition of piety is presented by Euthyphro:

“The pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods”

(Euthyphro, 12e). Socrates goes on to dissect this assertion further and interprets

it as being skilled at trading with the gods, which requires doing what pleases

the gods (Euthyphro, 14e). It is obvious that the conversation has gone back to

the beginning of the conversation, which started with Euthyphro

Cultivation of Arete

17

asserting the definition, “Prosecuting a wrongdoer, regardless of whether he is

your father or mother or anyone else” (Euthyphro, 5d-e). He was essentially

saying that piety is what is dear to the gods, which was the ending definition.

Euthyphro then says he must go and leaves, showing that he was ignorant and

wants to hear no more from Socrates. This is what Socrates’ mission is; he

proved that Euthyphro knew nothing, now it is up to Euthyphro to better

himself with that knowledge. Socrates has cultivated the fields of the soul; he

has planted the seeds, and now it is up to Euthyphro to allow them to grow or

kill them off, shutting out the truth.

In the Apology, as Socrates is defending himself against charges of

teaching and corrupting the youth of Athens, he takes the time to explain how

he differs from his adversaries, the sophists, who were travelling professional

teachers and intellectuals who frequented Athens and other Greek cities. In

return for a fee, the sophists offered young wealthy Greek men an education in

arête (virtue or excellence), thereby attaining wealth and fame. The sophist,

unlike Socrates, did not farm the soul. They brought in whole plants for a fee

and said do this and you will always be right. Socrates, on the other hand,

“does not think he knows what he does not know” (Apology, 21d), and he

“never promised to teach them anything” (Apology, 33b). Socrates simply plants

the idea that they are not all knowing, then allows them to either accept it or

deny it. He uses the fact that he admits to not knowing anything to try and

debunk the charges brought against him, because the sophists are the ones who

Michael K. Gill

18

believe they have the knowledge of excellence. He also does not take payment

for his work. He educates anyone, rich or poor, by planting the seed that all

they know are opinions and not real facts. He does not teach them excellence;

he sets them on a path that will allow them to find it. This is the difference

between Socrates and the sophists. He does not teach but guides them and lets

them figure things out for themselves. He does what Darwin believes God did:

he created the natural laws of the cosmos, including the laws of evolutionary

development, then stepped away. Socrates does the same, planting the seed,

then stepping away and letting nature take its course.

One of the last strategies that Socrates uses to clarify his philosophical

mission is explaining what Socratic ignorance and wisdom are. These terms are

very important, because you cannot have one without the other. You cannot

have the wisdom without the ignorance and vice-versa. “The god who speaks

through the oracle, he says, is truly wise, whereas human wisdom is worth little

or nothing” (Apology, 23a). What this means is that the only wisdom that a

human can have is the wisdom that he knows nothing, because only the god

has true wisdom. Humans can only have Socratic ignorance (the awareness of

one's own absence of knowledge), which will lead to Socratic wisdom (being

aware of the uncertainty of one’s beliefs). This is what philosophy is, loving

wisdom with such a passion that you admit that you know nothing. It gives you

the ability to question everything while you look for this wisdom, causing you

to find flaws and inconsistencies while gaining wisdom. Socrates comes to this

Cultivation of Arete

19

conclusion after his friend Chairephon asked the oracle of Delphi if any man

was wiser than Socrates. This lead to Socrates' investigation of many people,

from craftsman to poets, and the realization that they thought they were wise

when they were not. Socrates concluded that "it seems that I am wiser than he

is to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know" (Apology,

21d). This is what Socratic wisdom and ignorance are: knowing that you do not

know what you do not know. Through the little story Socrates demonstrates

that he was attempting to get the jury to realize that he is in no way a sophist

teaching for money, but a philosopher guiding people to wisdom and truth.

All the above examples prove what Socrates’ mission is: finding the

truth by showing the person claiming to have knowledge that in fact he does

not. Socrates plants that seed of ignorance, hopefully making the person think

and strive for excellence by admitting he knows nothing, which is true wisdom.

He gives them the ability to question themselves in such a manner that allows

them to see the inconsistency and lack of truth within their own claims. Thus,

he leads them to not necessarily reject, but to question what they had thought

to be true. He gives them wisdom, by giving them the ability to seek wisdom

through questioning everything and knowing they in fact know nothing. This is

achieved using the Socratic Method, differentiating between sophistry and

philosophy, and how Socratic ignorance can lead to Socratic wisdom, which

Socrates uses as examples to defend his mission. This is what Socrates is all

about. He does not accept payment, he does not claim to know what he does

Michael K. Gill

20

not, and he uses his methods to allow the claim-maker to question himself as

he guides them to the excellence he does not teach. He tends to the farm of

the soul, slowly nurturing it and sowing seeds or ideas. He does not bring the

farm already grown and say you can have this for a small fee and appear to

everyone that you can farm. It is now clear what Socrates' mission was, the

methods he used in order defend it, and why he was no way a sophist.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

21

Socrates’ Mission Represented in the Apology and Euthyphro PAOLA GOMEZ

Socrates was a Greek Philosopher who contributed significantly in the

philosophical culture of the past and present world. His true purpose in life

was to seek wisdom, but Socrates’ methods were unique because he had the

capability to help ideas form, which is why he would call himself a “midwife”.

He was different from the sophists in that his goal in an argument was not to

win, but to find the truth, and he was unlike other intellectuals in that he

admitted to not having knowledge, but he could also expose firmly held beliefs

that lacked in evidence. Plato received much of his inspiration from Socrates,

and his dialogues provide a source for discovering the way Socrates pursued

wisdom. In Plato’s Apology and Euthyphro, Socrates’ mission is to achieve a life

of excellence by examining one’s life and by discovering the truth in viewpoints

through critical discussion that can empower others to seek out this same truth

in which is essentially wisdom.

The mission of Socrates that is continuously represented in Plato’s

dialogues is to uncover the truth in any argument. More specifically, in the

Apology, Socrates critically argues the verdicts of the court in which he is on

trial for. One of the charges Meletus has made is that Socrates is an atheist but

has introduced other gods that do not correspond to the city’s gods. Socrates

refers to these accusations as slander and proves this by responding in such a

way that highlights the truth of his situation and the contradiction in his

Paola Gomez

22

charges. Socrates first states that many other individuals may falsely claim to

know everything in life, “whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I

know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent that I do not think

I know what I do not know” (Apology, 21d). Socrates is aware that he is wiser

than other men only in that he understands that he does not know everything,

proving that he is wrongfully being accused of slander because a person who is

going to introduce another God must be someone very wise and know

something that others do not. Socrates exposes the contradictions in the

charges placed upon him by his accusers, that Socrates does not believe in the

city's gods by stating to the jury, “Since I do believe in divine beings, as you

admit, if divine beings are gods…you say that I do not believe in gods and then

again I do, since I believe in divine beings” (Apology, 27d). If Socrates did not

believe in the city's gods, then the jury should not have said that he is a believer

of divine beings because gods are in actuality divine beings. This is

demonstrating that Meletus and the jury are actually in the wrong for

proposing these accusations because they lacked the adequate evidence and in

turn are also represented by Socrates as men that lack in the awareness

concerning the contradictions over their own statements.

One of the most effective dialogues Socrates is able to embark in is

taking the accusations of corrupting the youth placed upon him and proving

them wrong through evidence by exercising a discussion technique based upon

him called the Socratic Method. Socrates proposes the question that if he were

Socrates’ Mission Represented in the Apology and Euthyphro

23

threatening the minds of youth, “then surely some of them who have grown

older and realized that I gave them bad advice… should now themselves come

up here to accuse me and avenge themselves” (Apology, 33d). However, none of

this has happened, and Socrates knows these accusations are false, but he

proves it to us in a manner that involves continuously questioning because this

is what ultimately can lead to true knowledge. The way it leads to knowledge is

in Socrates’ next statement, in which he says that “It would be a very happy

state of affairs if only one person corrupted our youth, while the other

improved them” (Apology, 25b). The individuals present at the court are now

forced to think critically if really one person has the capability to be responsible

for corrupting a whole generation of young individuals. By exposing the false

statements of the court, Socrates is fulfilling his purpose of helping individuals

develop their own judgment and critical thinking because he knows this is the

way to achieving wisdom.

Socrates’ purpose in leading people into exercising their ability to seek

truth, develop wise judgments, and avoid contradiction is to ultimately help

people obtain a life of excellence, or arête. Wisdom is not having knowledge

over all subjects; it can be defined in a manner of acquiring knowledge over

oneself by truly understanding who one is and what one's purpose entails.

Socrates advises the jurors and individuals present in the court that “…it is the

greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things

about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the

Paola Gomez

24

unexamined life is not worth living for man” (Apology, 38a). Each individual

contains the power to examine oneself, an act that can lead to a life of

excellence where an individual is filled with purpose and the potential to make

an effective impact on the world. However, the reason we do not see much of

this, or why people lack in this area, is due to fear of thinking out of the

normal, routine ways of society. Socrates believes that, like in the army,

“Wherever a man has taken a position… or been placed by his commander he

must I think remain and face danger, without a thought for death” (Apology,

28d). He will not have fear due to being fully aware that his purpose is being

where he is and doing what he is doing. When a person allows fear of death to

be the greatest of evils they spend their entire lives fearing this one thing, but

in reality they are being ignorant and not exercising their full potential because

they cannot defend the idea that death is the greatest evil due to a lack of

pursuit of this knowledge.

The pursuit in achieving an individual's true potential is demonstrated

in another dialogue, in which Socrates searches for the meaning of piety. This

process involves Socrates questioning what Euthyphro declares is the form, or

definition, of piety. Euthyphro defines pious by using the example of when

Euthyphro prosecuted his father for murder, but Socrates answers saying,

“…you did not teach me adequately what the pious was when I asked you, but

you told me what you are doing now” (Euthyphro, 5d). When individuals cannot

provide the definition of a word, but instead answer it in the arrangement of an

Socrates’ Mission Represented in the Apology and Euthyphro

25

example, it does not mean it is understood. Rather, it means that the subject is

actually not understood because in order to apply a word or topic it must be

first defined, and this is the area in which Euthyphro lacks. Euthyphro states,

“It is a considerable task to acquire any precise knowledge of these things… if

a man knows how to say and do what is pleasing to the gods” (Apology, 14b).

By this he says what is pious. However, Socrates continuously questions

Euthyphro because his answers are not sufficient, and there is a shortage in

evidence and explanation. Socrates ultimately wants to impact people so much

that they question how much knowledge they truly know and if they

understand it to the point where a form of the pious or any other subjects can

be analyzed it. This may vitally contribute to knowledgeable and the excellent

life, along with the capability to make an impact on the world.

Socrates and Euthyphro do not gain any conclusion concerning the

form of piety, however, in a sense some type of conclusion is actually reached

because after a long conversation, with no direct decisions being made, it

demonstrates that not all knowledge is capable of being acquired, and therefore

the pursuit for the form of pious represents the understanding of what one

cannot know. Impiety would be ignorance and a refusal to be aware that one

cannot have more wisdom than the other. The jurors in the court did not

revise their thoughts over Socrates’ viewpoints because their mindsets had

been locked, and for this reason they cannot reach virtue. They cannot justify

their accusations or defend the contradictions that Socrates highlights in both

Paola Gomez

26

of these dialogues. There will be a point in time where people will rise up and

the jurors will see how they were wrong to silence Socrates and others on the

basis of traditional viewpoints. They may feel that “…by killing people [they]

will prevent anyone from reproaching [them] for not living in the right way”,

however Socrates knows and advises the court that “…to escape such tests in

neither possible nor good, but it is best and easiest not to discredit others”

(Apology, 39d). Socrates dies while trying to discover the truth in his charges,

hoping to encourage others to pursue truth, but the many “admirable truths

they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within”

(Theaetetus, 150c-d). This ties in with Socrates’ mission and the birth of ideas

one needs to assess oneself because this leads to a mindset of questioning,

exposing faults, and achieving the pursuit towards wisdom.

Those who follow Socrates’ mission and examine who they are,

analyze their beliefs, and seek truth will not commit wrongdoings out of lack of

knowledge. Socrates describes these individuals as being fully knowledgeable

regarding their actions and why they carry them out. These individuals will

have the wisdom to make the right choice that is beneficial for him or herself

and the community. A world where every human being understands their own

purpose is a world that can be proactive over changing and improving

countries, communities, and homes. This process starts with having an open

and not easily satisfied mind because, as Socrates makes clear in both of these

texts, powerful leaders can be wrong and even intellectuals can lack in

Socrates’ Mission Represented in the Apology and Euthyphro

27

knowledge. It is incumbent on every human individual to examine one's

purpose because it will lead to a life without restrictions, a life dedicated to

seeking truth without limitation, and ultimately a life that is excellent. This was

Socrates’ true mission in these dialogues and his life, empowering others to

seek a type of intellectual revelation, outside of the norm

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

28

Evil: Who is Responsible for It? ROLANDA JONES

I. Introduction

When one thinks about the presence of evil the first thing that comes

to mind is why evil exists in the first place, and who is responsible for it.

Knowing that evil is among us, plagues mankind to the point where we want

answers. But what is evil? Evil can be defined as deeds that are done against

another human being that are intended to hurt, or harm him or her. This hurt

can be as simple as lying to gain trust, to killing another being for selfish

reasons. Many feel there is a higher being that is greater than mankind that is in

control of the order of the Earth. Many call this being God, and this God is

responsible for the creation of good and evil. This God is morally perfect in

every way all knowing, and all powerful. Others believe that God does not

exist, and if there is a God, why has he allowed evil to remain on Earth when

God can eliminate it? Many great philosophers have studied this topic in hopes

of finding a solution to this problem to no avail. With this being said, we will

take a look at the problem of evil and discuss the different sides to the

argument in hopes of gaining a better understanding of the argument so a

conclusion can be drawn by the reader that will help gain knowledge and

understanding as to why evil exist, whether there is a God, and what God’s

plan may be about the problem of evil. We will talk about the article entitled,

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

29

“The Problem of Evil” by Bruce and Barbone, to gain an understanding as to

why they feel that God does not exist because evil does, then we will look at

another perspective by taking a look at the opposing side of the argument, then

we will look at a critique from the writer, and finally, end with the writer’s

thoughts about the topic, and why the writer feels that there is a problem with

the “Problem of Evil” and what this problem entails.

II. The Problem of Evil

When one thinks about God and evil, it is difficult to place the two

together. God, on one hand, is presented as an all-present, all-knowing, and

loving being who acts in the best interest of his children, mankind. Most of us

have been raised in some form of religion and have come to know God as

perfect. But, if there is a perfectly loving God among us, then how can one

explain the catastrophes that are occurring on this Earth every day? From

earthquakes to murder, these events have shaped our lives to the point where

some have begun to believe that God does not exist. In the article entitled,

“The Problem of Evil” Michael Bruce and Steven Barbone discuss the

problems that mankind has with how an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally

perfect God could allow evil to take place on the earth and still remain God;

God must not exist. (Bruce, 2011, p. 35) On the other hand, some believe

because evil is present in the world; God must exist. We will discuss both sides

of the argument in hopes that this discussion will spark new perspective on the

Rolanda Jones

30

topic, and that mankind can solve the centuries old problem with the problem

of evil.

III. The Perfectly Imperfect God?

Evil is a force that has been among man since the beginning of

mankind’s existence, and perhaps long before. Evil deeds can be simple; a bad

deed done by a human being against another human being, or can get as

complicated as; a white collar worker stealing money from his employer that is

stealing money from its own investors. One would ask, with evil so prevalent,

how could there be an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God?” If there

is a God, and God is not doing anything about evil, God must not exist. In this

essay, we will examine the theory on the logical problem of evil and answer

two questions: If God is morally perfect, why is God allowing evil? If there is a

God, why would God create evil in the first place? Lastly, we will investigate

the inconsistencies with a morally perfect God, and mankind’s free will.

IV. If God is morally perfect, why is God allowing evil?

“For the Lord has comforted his people, and will have compassion on

his suffering ones –Isaiah 49:13” (Unity, 2016, p. 30). According to the book of

Isaiah, God is loving, empathic, and cares what happens to mankind. In the

logical problem with evil, many esteemed writers in favor of the non-existence

of God have had trouble understanding how a God who, on one hand, loves

mankind to the point that he allowed his only son to die on a cross for

mankind’s sin, but on the other, seems rather unavailable when it comes to the

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

31

evils that are present today. Surely, one could easily take note of all the evil that

is around us, but why has God not? Author James R. Beebe, who quotes H.J.

McCloskey, explains, in saying; “Evil is a problem, for the theist, in that a

contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand and belief in the

omnipotence and omniscience of God on the other” (Beebe, 2016). When

thinking about this, it is hard to believe that a morally perfect God who is

capable of preventing evil would not chose to do so for the sake of mankind,

the same mankind that he loves so dearly. Either God chooses not to, or God

is non-existing. Take for example, a woman being raped by her attacker, who

believes in God and calls out to him to save her. After the rape, the attacker,

feeling the need to get rid of the evidence, kills the woman, and hides her body

in a flaming incinerator, ridding himself of the evidence. Now, this man has no

ties to the crime, and lives the rest of his life without committing any more

crimes, resulting in this one crime being considered unsolved. Where is God’s

involvement? Theists would believe that allowing the woman to die was a

reprieve in its self. Some would argue that if a person would step in and stop it,

why would God not? One would wonder how a morally perfect God would

allow the act to be committed in the first place.

V. Why would God create evil in the first place?

As it seems, God, who theist believe is the creator of everything also

would have to be the creator of evil as well. “I form the light, and darkness; I

make peace, and create evil; I the lord do all these things” (Bible, 2004-2015).

Rolanda Jones

32

But, why create evil in the first place? If God truly exists, this is where many

non-believers find fault with the argument for God’s existence. In the

argument by Michael Bruce and Steven Barbone entitled, “The Problem of

Evil”, they write:

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can” (Bruce, M. and Barbone, S., 2011). If God cannot eradicate evil, then God would, well, not be God. But if God can and chooses not to, then God would be considered evil himself, which is still a contradiction of God’s loving attribute. If God does exist, and God created good and evil, then God has created something that is out of his own control by joining mankind with good and evil.

VI. Inconsistencies with a morally perfect God and free will

Imagine, if you will, a world where everyone and everything made

perfect choices. The grass will always choose to be green, the sun will always

shine, and animals will be in perfect harmony with man and each other. Every

being would be obedient to God. Sounds beautiful, right? Almost too good to

be true. That is because it is. As we would have it, man has the freedom to

make his or her own choices. If mankind were to live in the sort of world

described above, and could only do what was right, then mankind no longer

would have free will. Free will can be described as the choices that one makes

for oneself that invoke a consequence whether good or bad. A scenario was

introduced by Plantinga in his free will defense, but there are issues that need

to be addressed, such as a heavenly scenario like the above. “If heavenly

dwellers do not possess morally significant free will, and yet their existence is

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

33

something of tremendous value, it is not clear that God was justified in

creating persons here on earth with the capacity for rape, murder, torture…”

(Beebe, 2016). God’s purpose for making man was so that man would be God-

like. It makes no sense to create beings on earth that are morally inconsistent

with God’s character, but consider the being’s in the image of “God”.

VII. Making sense of it all

The problem of evil has been a concern that has puzzled philosophers

for many years. Asking how could an all-knowing and loving God allow evil to

exist leads to a conclusion that either there is no God or that God is not as

powerful as thought to be. A true God has to have more power than the one

he creates. If God has no free will and can only do good, then God exhibits

attributes that mankind cannot, which says man is not made in the image of

God. If God did exist and he cannot or chooses not to do anything about evil,

then God will be considered a passive god, not a god of true strength. I found

a quote from James Beebe to be significant to this topic: “It seems that God

could have actualized whatever greater goods are made possible without

allowing horrible instances of evil and suffering in the world” (Beebe, 2016). If

God does exist, he could have done without evil.

Bruce and Barbone discuss the problems that mankind has with how

an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God could allow evil to take

place on the earth and still remain God. Bruce and Barbone dig into the

Rolanda Jones

34

argument of the logical problem with evil by breaking down God’s character in

hopes of understanding God’s nature in saying:

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak – and this does not apply to god. If he can, but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to God’s nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them? (Bruce, M. and Barbone, S., 2011)

Breaking down this argument results in the following three premises:

1. God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but

does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can.

2. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak – and this does not apply to god. If he can, but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god’s nature.

3. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he want to and can, which is the only fitting for god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does not eliminate them? (Bruce, M. and Barbone, S., 2011)

It appears that “God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can

but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can”

(ibid.). If God wanted to eliminate evil, he very well could. God is omnipotent,

which means that God is almighty and powerful. Sure, he can eliminate evil.

But, if God did so, he would also have to eliminate free will. Free –will can be

described as the choices that we make for ourselves that invoke consequences.

These consequences can be good or bad. Without evil, how would one know

what good is? God created a balance so mankind would have a contrast

between good and evil. Knowing the difference between good and evil is

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

35

critical; without this, there would not be knowledge. Plantinga explains, “Part

of what makes us the creatures we are is that we possess morally significant

freedom” (Beebe, 2016). Without free will, we would just be puppets on a

string being pulled by God. But, God did not want that. God wanted us to

have a desire to trust and believe in him, even if we chose not to believe. That

is the beauty of choice. God can eliminate evil, but in doing so, he would be

eliminating free will as well. Plantinga also wrote, “If that freedom were to be

taken away, we might cease to be the creatures we are.” (Beebe, 2016) Free will

gives us the freedom to use reason and logic, or – to be irrational and

unreasonable. If an individual makes a choice to commit a crime, this choice

was made on his own free will, and with this comes the consequences of his or

her own choices.

VIII. “If he wants to and cannot, he is weak –and this does not

apply to god. If he can and does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god’s nature.” In the last section, we discussed mankind’s free will, but many

philosophers in support of atheism have included whether God has free will.

God does have free will as well. God would not give mankind a virtue that he

himself did not or could not possess. With that being said, if God wanted to

eliminate evil and could not, -- could not happen! God has chosen to exercise

his free will by pulling away his omnipotence so man can fully make use of his

own free will. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who is a theologian, pastor, prophet, and

Rolanda Jones

36

preacher, spoke about God’s relinquishing his power for the sake of mankind.

Bonhoeffer has been quoted to say,

God let himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross, he is weak and powerless in the world. And that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us… Christ helps us not by omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and sufferings. (Valley, 2014)

This is such a powerful statement. I would equate this to a parent giving up his

food for the sake of their child. In order to show mankind just how strong

God is, God became weak. But, that does not mean that God is weak, or that

God cannot exercise his omnipotence or omniscience, but that he chooses not

to. There is a difference between not having strength, and refraining from

using your strength. If in adult were to play fight with a child, would the adult

use all of their force with the child? No! The adult restrains himself in order

not to hurt the child because the adult knows that he or she can hurt them, and

the adult cares for the child. But if the adult was weak, the child could take

over the adult – easily! With God, this is not the case. It is out of love that God

refrains from hurting us; it is now mankind hurting ourselves.

IX. “If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and

spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only fitting for a god where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them? After discussing why God presence is no longer around us, now the

question left is where are bad things coming from? Mankind of course! And

here is the problem with mankind; we never want to take responsibility for our

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

37

actions! When evil is happening, we want to blame God for it. God is either

causing it, or he is not God because he is not stopping it from happening. How

much crazier can we get here? This quote in itself speaks volumes about the

duality of man. Let us take a look at man’s actions here. Mankind would like to

know why there are earthquakes and natural calamities happening here on

earth. Maybe because mankind keeps tampering with nature. Why are people

killing each other? Well, because there is something that is wanted from

another person that they cannot have. The questions here can go on for days

and days. I see why God has chosen to remove his spirit from Earth. God

made man in his image, gave us the freedom to make our own choices, and this

is what we chose to do: kill, cheat, steal, and disrupt the planet’s natural

balance. Mankind chose evil. Evil did not choose us!

X. What does it all mean?

God is not responsible for our actions anymore. Even if God did not

exist, should we not take care of and be kind to one another? We, as humans,

have made brilliant advances in the fields of medicine and technology, but we

have yet to figure out how to provide clean water for our fellow humans in

other countries that are without. We have yet to learn to keep our hands to

ourselves when it comes to other people’s property. Mankind needs to

understand this and change ourselves. Maybe that is what God is waiting on,

mankind to realize that we all have his attributes, that we have the power to be

Rolanda Jones

38

God-like and change. But, if we do not change, God did promise that he would

rid the world of evil, on his own time. But what can we, as humans, do until

then? We can love each other, and our planet. To quote Bonhoeffer,

There are so many experiences and disappointments that drive sensitive people toward nihilism and resignation. That is why it is good to learn early that suffering and God are not contradictions, but rather a necessary unit. For me, the idea that it is really God who suffers has always been one of the most persuasive teachings of Christianity. I believe that God in this way brings peace and repose and a strong, courageous heart (Valley, 2014).

This statement sums up the beauty of God, that when mankind suffers,

God suffers too!

XI. The Proof, and the Truth “Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.” –

Joseph Stalin (Waller, 2011). In light of this statement, Joseph Stalin, the most

hated dictator in history, and the most evil men on the planet, was the epitome

of evil. Steven Barbone and Michael Bruce lay out a foundation for the

problem of evil in an article, “The Problem of Evil”, which gives an

explanation that if evil exists, then God, who is defined as omnipotent, which

is all-powerful, omniscient, all-knowing, and morally perfect, could not exist. If

God could do something about evil and chooses not to, then God is

considered spiteful, but if God cannot do anything about the presence of evil,

then God is not a god at all; he would be considered weak. We will talk about

the problems faced with reading the article and address the issues and

questions. Some of the questions were: how does the presence of evil prove

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

39

there is no God? Mankind has free will and can choose between good and evil.

Free will can be described as choices that are made that can induce a

consequence, whether good or bad. Does free will prove that God does not

exist or prove that he does? The problem with “The Problem of Evil” is that

the presence of evil does not prove there is no God. It just proves that evil

exists. Some of the premises prove that God does exist are:

1. If God has done nothing about evil, then how can one explain good/bad events?

2. If good/bad events have an explanation, then there must be a bigger plan.

3. If there is a plan and a planner, there must be a God. 4. God exists.

XII. The Passive God When trying to find out whether God exists, we first have to address Bruce

and Barbone’s claim that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally

perfect, then why has he not done anything about evil; he must not exist.

(Bruce, 2011, p. 35) How can a person draw such a strong conclusion off such

little evidence? The first premises for this argument is that if God is all-

powerful, all-knowing, and can do something about evil, or cannot do anything

about evil, or can and will not do anything about evil, then he is weak, and

possibly spiteful (Bruce, 2011, p. 35). But, what about free will? God would not

give man a virtue that he, himself, did not possess. If God wanted to eliminate

evil, he very well could. But if God did so, he would have to also eliminate free

will. Plantinga wrote, “Part of what makes us the creatures we are is that we

Rolanda Jones

40

possess morally significant freedom” (Beebe, 2016). Without this freedom,

called free will, we would not truly understand what evil or good was. God

created a balance. Free will gives us the ability to choose to commit a crime or

feed a hundred homeless children. God may have wanted us to choose

whether we will accept his love. But who is to say that God has not done

anything about evil? For every evil deed that is done on this planet, there are

countless beautiful deeds that are done as well. For example, there are people

out in the world saving lives like doctors and nurses, rain that falls on the land

ending a drought, and animals saving the life of a human while sacrificing its

own life in the process. There is an understanding as to why an atheist would

feel that God does not exist. Evil, by today’s standards, gets more attention

than good. Evil provokes more emotions, such as hurt, pain, anger, and

resentment. It is easier to focus on. Bad demands a solution, and at times, a

fault. But, is this fault God? Surely, an atheist would have a person to believe

that we are all here by random acts of nature that happened over billions of

years ago, but if this is true, then why are we seeing very little evolutionary

changes today? Another thought worth mentioning is that atheists believe that

God does not exist, but you have to first believe that something exists before

you can believe that it does not exist. It seems to me that something created

mankind and all that is around us, and this someone has a plan.

XIII. What’s the Plan?

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

41

If God created good and evil, then there must be a plan in place. This

plan must have been well thought out, and executed. This plan has to have

been in place before mankind was created. This thought lead me to believe that

God is, in fact, omnipotent and omniscient. I will explain this by using a potter

analogy. Let us say that God is the potter. Now, before a potter can make a

pot, he first has to think about what he or she wants to make. The potter has

to know about clay, what to mix with the clay, and what temperature the clay

can withstand without destroying the pot in the fire. Let us say the clay is

mankind. The potter knows everything about the clay and the design. But, does

the pot know everything about the potter? Of course not! All the pot knows is

that it was designed and now exists. The potter knows that one day the clay will

have to go through the fire. The fire in this analogy is evil. Now, the potter

understands fire and knows the dangers of it; so, the potter already has safety

precautions in place to protect the pot. This is how mankind can use

discernment about God. But, how can we be sure that there is a plan in place

for us? Well, we see this plan every day! Every day that the pot exists, there are

forces that ensure the pot’s survival, such as, oxygen, carbon monoxide in the

air, plants to reduce the CO2, gravity to keep the pot’s form, and many other

forces that keep the pot from falling apart. Thinking about this, if Barbone and

Bruce felt like there could not be a God because God has done nothing about

evil, maybe God knew evil would exist and planned accordingly. Maybe that

explains Jesus. By sending a perfect sacrifice, which we shall call the water in

Rolanda Jones

42

the pot; the pot would not hold together. Just enough water has to evaporate,

and just enough has to stay in the pot otherwise, when the pot hits the fire, the

pot would turn back into dirt.

XIV. God’s Beautiful Gift.

The “Problem of Evil” allows us to take a solid look at life and

question the events that are taking place in the here and now. The beautiful

part about this article is that it allows critical thinking to take place, and lets

mankind exercise his or her own free will and judgement. The quote from

Joseph Stalin shows that mankind has the ability to think for itself. Stalin’s

critical thinking skills may have been cut-throat considering the fact that he

turned his thoughts into actions against millions of innocent people. But

without God allowing us to have free will, we would not be able to do so. We

would be mindless robots waiting for a master to give us our next command.

God, in exercising his own free will, gave us an opportunity to think and act

for ourselves. This was part of his plan. But, with this comes great

responsibility. God is neither weak nor spiteful. How could God not exist, and

be weak and spiteful? Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about God and evil,

explaining,

There are so many experiences and disappointments that drive sensitive people towards nihilism and resignation. That is why it is good to learn early that suffering and God are not contradictions, but rather a necessary unit. For me, the idea that is really God who suffers has always been one of the most persuasive teachings of Christianity. I believe that God in this way brings peace and repose and a strong, courageous heart (Valley, 2014).

Evil: Who is Responsible for It?

43

This brings me back to the potter analogy. The potter put the pot in the fire.

Why? Because the potter knew, in the end, what the outcome would be. In a

sense, mankind needs evil to occur. If death and suffering did not take place,

the earth would overcrowd itself. The beautiful part about this, is we are not

alone in this suffering. Barbone and Bruce would have us to believe that we

are. In my opinion, there is no problem of evil. Good and evil are pieces to a

greater plan. If there is a problem of evil, the solution is understanding God –

the master potter.

So, when trying to make sense in all of this, we learn that Barbone and

Bruce’s claim that God does not exist because the presence of evil does, does

not mean that there is no God. What this does mean is that God may have a

bigger plan for mankind. Mankind does not know what this plan is.

REFERENCES

Beebe, J. (2016, July 16). “The Logical Problem of Evil”. In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

Bible. (2004-2015). King James Version. Biblehub.com. Retrieved from Bible Hub: www.biblehub.com

Bruce, M and Barbone, S. (2011). The Problem with Evil. In M. A.

Bruce, Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy (p. 36). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Unity. (2016, May/June 17). The Daily Word. God's Love Enfolds Us, p. 30. Valley, J. (2014, October 29). Jesus For Humans. Retrieved from joshvalley.com: www.joshvalley.com

Rolanda Jones

44

Waller, J. (2011, June 13). 20 Quotes of Evil Leaders. Retrieved from Listverse.com: www.listverse.com

45

Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism NAHYUNG KIM

A growing altruistic movement seeks to find the most effective ways

to help people. Instead of accepting blind giving, the proponents of Effective

Altruism perform thorough research to ensure that the way they are giving and

those to whom they are giving can make the greatest impact. Prominent leaders

in the movement include Peter Singer, William MacAskill and Toby Ord.

Effective Altruists are often known for deciding to donate a fixed ten percent

of their life’s income to the charity organizations that research has shown to be

most effective. One contemporary difficulty, in both the Effective Altruism

movement and society as a whole, is the dilemma between living a life of

consumerism and charity. Although Effective Altruists argue that giving ten

percent of one’s total life income does not actually cause much change in the

donor’s life, there are certainly cutbacks to their materialistic lifestyle, which is

why so many people hesitate to commit themselves to this goal.

The issue at question here is, what is the most effective lifestyle to help the most

people possible—consumerism or charity? In the history of American society,

“consumerism” is generally defined as a two-part idea: the expenditure of

money on progressively more goods and services not only 1) increases the

consumer’s level of happiness, but also 2) ensures a constant economic cycle of

production and consumption (Wright & Rogers, 2011). The rising worldwide

trend of consumerism began with the Industrial Revolution in England in the

Nahyung Kim

46

mid-1700’s, when the invention of steam engines and machines allowed for

mass production of consumer goods for the first time ever (Montagna, n.d.).

From England, the technology of the Industrial Revolution made its way to

other parts of the world; now, consumerism can be seen as the primary system

of living in many developed countries, including the United States. “Charity”

can be defined as the act of giving one’s own possessions or performing

activities to help others who lack a something necessary in life. The concept of

charity has been in existence for longer than consumerism; in fact, the word

“philanthropy,” a synonym of charity, can even be traced back to 500 B.C. in

the ancient Greek play Prometheus Bound (McCully, 2005). Consumerism is not

typically associated with humanitarianism. However, like charity, it is designed

to be a lifestyle that supports people, both physically and emotionally.

Consumerism argues that people should spend their income on progressively

more goods and services, not only because it will increase the consumer’s level

of life satisfaction, but also because a constant cycle of production and

consumption is beneficial to the economy. While individuals may use

consumerism for their own benefit, it also helps the economy of countries

based in consumerism.

What is the most effective lifestyle to help the most people possible—consumerism or

charity? I will first define the word “help.” Both consumerism and effective

altruism can be of help to people through different ways. “Help” is defined as

an action that assists fulfilling a necessary need. “Necessary needs” are basic

Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism

47

requirements humans need to feel physiologically and psychologically secure.

Needing food or shelter are examples of necessary physiological needs.

Needing companionship or a certain level of happiness in life are examples of

necessary psychological needs. The types of needs that consumerism and

charity must help to fulfill will be inspected further in the essay.

How effective is consumerism and charity (respectively) in helping

people who practice it attain their necessary needs? In other words, I will be

trying to determine how effective both charity and consumerism are on a

personal level. This first sub-topic puts emphasis on the first half of the main

question: what is the most effective lifestyle? To judge both consumerism and charity

on an equal scale, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs will be used. The different

types of necessary human needs were mentioned in the previous paragraph;

these needs were addressed by the famous humanistic psychologist Abraham

Maslow in 1943 and organized into a set of categories famously known as

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Boree, 2006). According to Maslow’s theory,

there are certain criteria of needs that every human seeks to meet in order to

lead a physically and mentally fulfilling life. The Hierarchy can be divided into

five categories: physiological needs, safety needs, belonging needs, esteem

needs, and self-actualization, the highest need being the latter (Boree, 2006). To

measure how effectively consumerism and charity help people, each will be

weighed by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to decide its value. This analytical

tool can be used to measure how consumerism and charity can be of help to

Nahyung Kim

48

people personally, and on what levels they can meet the needs that everybody

possesses. Whether it be consumerism or charity, the lifestyle that best fulfills

the criteria of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs will be the method that helps

individual most effectively.

To begin, how consumerism meets the needs of individuals will be

discussed. According to psychologist MihalyCsikzentimihalyi (2000),

consumerism is able to partially fulfill the different criteria of needs in

Maslow’s Hierarchy. In his article, “The Costs and Benefits of Consuming,”

Csikzentimihalyi divides human needs into two categories: “lower needs,”

which include survival and safety (physiological and safety needs), and “higher

needs,” which include belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.

Csikzentimihalyi suggests that physiological and safety needs, such as the need

to eat, drink, and have shelter, could be met by the practice of consumerism.

For example, the desire to buy houses in a “good” neighborhood may also be

part of the desire for a safer environment. Furthermore, Csikzentimihalyi

presents “bars, restaurants, sports arenas, museums, and concert halls” as

examples of places where consumer activity offers opportunities to mix with

others and create bonds to fulfill higher belonging needs. In fact, contrary to

the negative attitude towards social conformity that consumerism often

encourages, Csikzentimihalyi argues that conformity to the social practice of

buying the latest products on the consumer market is a means to acquire

feelings of belonging to society. Purchasing items that represent one’s

Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism

49

superiority and social wealth, such as pricy cars or clothing, can also increase

feelings of esteem. However, Csikzentimihalyi points out that achieving self-

actualization, the need placed in the highest category can be a different case:

individuals who focus on self-growth tend to focus more on improvement of

the inner self, rather than improvement of their outer goods. It is important to

note that meeting the highest level of need, self-actualization, cannot be done

through consumerism alone; furthermore, the achievement of self-actualization

leads to the diminishment of a consumerist lifestyle. This suggests

consumerism fails to fulfill the most important and sophisticated level of an

individual’s needs. As mentioned before, “help” is defined as an action that

contributes to fulfilling a necessary physical or psychological need. Thus,

because consumerism cannot enable the person to meet the highest

psychological level of need on Maslow’s categories of needs, it can be

concluded consumerism is not the most effective means to help people on a

personal level.

The effectiveness of charity on an individual scale is also investigated

by how helpful it is in fulfilling different categories of needs in Maslow’s

Hierarchy. Inductive reasoning, another method of making arguments in

critical thinking, will be used to analyze charity. Inductive arguments “claim

that their conclusion probably follows from the premises” (Boss, 2015, p. 205).

However, inductive arguments are not necessarily less dependable than

deductive arguments; in fact, depending on how well it is carried out, an

Nahyung Kim

50

inductive argument can be stronger than a deductive one. Unlike consumerism,

where the individuals are able to provide their necessary needs for themselves,

charity is able to fulfill the necessary needs of others. In fact, there are

numerous charitable organizations today that are dedicated to providing shelter

(such as Habitat for Humanity) or food (such as Feeding America), thereby

fulfilling essential survival and safety needs. Also, Peter Singer, in his book, The

Most Good You Can Do, explains that people usually give to charity because they

feel included in the community they serve, or because of the “warm feeling”

they get from helping someone (2015). In this way, charity can increase the

feeling of belonging and esteem for donors, thereby fulfilling their higher needs

of belonging and esteem on the Hierarchy. Charity, like consumerism, is able to

achieve the diverse lower and higher needs of individuals, but through different

means. The difference between the effectiveness of consumerism and the

effectiveness of charity, then, can only be determined if charity is able to help

reach the most sophisticated level of need on the Hierarchy, self-actualization.

The article “Why Do People Give to Charity?” by Sean Stannard-Stockton

explains how charity can fulfill the criterion of self-actualization in the pyramid

of needs. Although Stannard-Stockton is not a psychologist, he is a specialist in

philanthropic planning and regularly consults with altruists who wish to

improve the welfare of others through donations. Due to this experience, his

article’s discussion of the different qualities of a philanthropist is reliable.

Stannard-Stockton explains that the qualities of people who have reached self-

Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism

51

actualization are very similar to qualities of the “very best philanthropists”

(2008). He reasons that, generally, people who have lived a life of continuous

giving share the quality of having acquired self-actualization, which means that

they have accomplished the highest tier of need in Maslow’s criteria.

The philanthropists Stannard-Stockton encountered already have their

lower physical and psychological needs met, which allows them to reach the

level of self-actualization. This inductive argument entails the assumption that

altruists should be able to reach out to others since they have already fulfilled

their basic lower needs. For example, Effective Altruists dedicate ten percent

of their life’s income to charitable donations, since they are financially stable

enough to be able to support themselves while donating a portion of their

income. In contrast to consumerism, charity helps to achieve the highest tier of

need, self-actualization. Through inductive reasoning, he argues that people

who have lived a life of continuous giving have achieved the characteristics of

self-actualization, and that they have already accomplished the lower needs on

the Hierarchy. The conclusion is thereby reached that charity is an effective

lifestyle for individuals to attain their necessary needs.

Now the long-term impacts of consumerism and charity will be

explored. For a lifestyle to be helpful to the most people possible, it must have

prolonged effects that are not only global, but also continuous on a long-term

basis.

Nahyung Kim

52

Consumerism is an idea that encourages people to spend their income on

progressively more goods and services to increase the consumer’s level of

happiness. In other words, a major aim of consumerism is to help the

consumer achieve happiness. A project done by Pew Research Institute in 2007

collected data from countries in Asia with emerging economies, such as

Indonesia, China, and Malaysia, over seven years. In 2014, they found that the

populations that experienced strong economic growth are much happier today

than seven years ago (Simmons). Strong economic growth is largely associated

with an increase in the general population’s level of income and an increase of

the consumer’s ability to purchase goods and services. From this research, it is

possible to argue that consumerism is successful in helping consumers reach

happiness. However, a similar study carried out over a longer period shows

otherwise. An investigation titled “Happiness and Life Satisfaction” by Our

World in Data, a database organization powered by Oxford Martin School of

Research, helps to explain the long-term impacts of consumerism on a global

scale. The research measured levels of happiness and life satisfaction in

consumerist countries for several decades to see if there was a correlation

between the rises in general income and the population’s level of happiness. In

one example, the research shows a graph of the levels of life satisfaction of the

people of Japan through the years from 1958 to 1986. In Japan, despite very

rapid economic growth of more than five percent over the 1960’s, 70’s, and

80’s, the level of life satisfaction remained rather constant (Roser2016). The

Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism

53

research also presents a phenomenon called the “Easterlin Paradox,” which

claims that the relationship between income and happiness or life satisfaction

becomes “less definite” as income increases, and over time, there seems to be

no relationship at all (Roser 2016). An increase in income in a consumerist

society means the increase of the ability to purchase more goods and services.

If increased income, past a certain point, had no long-term effect on the level

of the general population’s happiness, then that means consumerism itself, as a

lifestyle, has no long-lasting effectiveness in helping to give more happiness to

those who practice it. The Easterlin Paradox is a crucial social phenomenon for

showing that in the long term, consumerism is not the most effective lifestyle

to help the most people.

What are the long-term impacts of charity? Charity was defined as the

act of giving one’s own possessions or performing activities to help others who

lack a necessary need in life, one of the most important of which is physical

well-being. GiveWell, an Effective Altruist organization that performs detailed

research on the effectiveness of diverse charity organizations, claims that the

act of donating to deworm a child has “a subtle, lasting impact on their

development, and thus on their ability to be productive and successful

throughout life” (Karnofsky, 2012). This claim is based on the reports from the

Rockefeller Sanitary Commission’s campaign in South America in the early

20th century, in which they found that areas treated for hookworm infections

Nahyung Kim

54

“experienced greater increases in school enrollment, attendance, and literacy”

(Karnofsky, 2012).

Some charities make longer, lasting impacts by increasing quality of

life. Increasing a person’s quality of life could lead to endless new possibilities

for the person, but also for his/her environment. In the case of Rockefeller’s

deworming campaign, the children who received treatment for hookworms

received a better education because they stopped being sick from hookworm

infections. Consequently, those children had more opportunities to spread

change and further improve their surrounding communities. Of course, there

are also other types of charity that tend to be less effective; in fact, some large

charity organizations often fail to realize their full potential due to large

expenditures on human management and human resources. An example of

such a failure would be the Red Cross’ record of building merely six homes for

the people of Haiti after their major earthquake in 2011, after raising

approximately half a billion dollars for the project (Elliott & Sullivan, 2015).

Likewise, there are numerous other ineffective, yet large charitable

organizations that fail to execute with effective results. Despite such flaws in

major charity organizations of today, Effective Altruism acts as the rising

countermovement to such less effective administrations; Effective Altruists

focus on creating the biggest impact from a limited amount of resources by

focusing on gathering accurate research and evidence before taking action, in

other words, by using critical thinking. Accordingly, with the right process of

Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism

55

thinking and planning, charity is able to make the most prolonged impact in

the lives of the people it helps.

This analysis found that consumerism and charity are both able to

fulfill most of the tiers on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which shows that

both lifestyles can effectively support individuals physically and psychologically.

However, consumerism is unable to fulfill the final stage of “self-actualization,”

where the individual stops improving their goods and services and begins to

improve their inner being. Through the examination of both consumerism and

charity, the phenomena of the Easterlin paradox revealed there was no

correlation between happiness and consumption in the long term, thus

showing that consumerism is not able to make a prolonged positive impact on

the world. On the other hand, certain types of charity, such as deworming,

were found to have created lasting impacts by increasing the quality of life of

the people who benefit. In the two questions that probe into the essence of

charity and consumerism, charity was found to be the lifestyle that makes the

most prolonged, effective impact, not only on a personal level, but also on a

global perspective. Although charity seemed to prevail as more effective, both

charity and consumerism were found to have limitations; for example, while

consumerism is unable to help the consumer reach self-actualization on the

pyramid of needs, some charity organizations such as the Red Cross are

ineffective in giving the most effective help to those in need. However, with

the rising movement of Effective Altruism, there is the possibility to improve

Nahyung Kim

56

charity to fulfill the initiatives in the most effective manner. In this respect,

charity holds more potential for the future as a lifestyle with the ability to

spread change.

REFERENCES

Boree, G. C. (2006). Abraham Maslow. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html

Boss, J. A. (2015). Think: Critical thinking and logic for everyday life. (n.p.): McGraw-Hill Education.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). The Costs and Benefits of Consuming.

Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 267-272. https://doi.org/10.1086/314324

Eliott, J., & Sullivan, L., NPR (2015, June 3). How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti ­and Built Six Homes. ProPublica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes

Karnofsky, H. (2012, Dec 14). Evidence of Impact for Long-Term Benefits. Retrieved from http://blog.givewell.org/2012/12/14/evidence-of-impact-for-long-term-benefits/

MacAskill, W. (2014, March 11). The History of the Term Effective Altruism. Message posted to http://effective-altruism.com/ea/5w/the_history_of_the_term_effective_altruism/

McCully, G. (2015, Sep 25). The Unity and Philanthropy of Education. Retrieved from https://histphil.org/2015/09/25/not-just-a-funder-philanthropy-as-part-of-the-lessons-of-education/

Montagna, J. A. (n.d.). The Industrial Revolution. Retrieved from http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curriculum/units/1981/2/81.02.06.x.html

Roser, M. (2016) Happiness and Life Satisfaction. Our World in

Charity versus Consumerism in Effective Altruism

57

Data. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/

Simmons, K. (2014). When It Comes to Happiness, Money Matters. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/when-it-comes-to-happiness-money-matters/

Singer, P. (2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. New Haven: Yale UP.

Stannard-Stockton, S. (2008, Mar 12). Why Do People Give to

Charity? Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/why_do_people_give_to_charity

Wright, E. O., & Rogers, J. (2011). Chapter 7: Consumerism. In American Society: How It Really Works (7). Retrieved from https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ContemporaryAmericanSociety/Chapter%207%20--%20consumerism%20--%20Norton%20August.pdf

58

The Purpose of the Philosopher LAWRENCE LIM

Throughout history, human beings have sought to understand the

world around them. They either attempt it to make life better for themselves,

to satisfy their curiosity, or to find a higher purpose in this world. While the

scientific method could be applied to the first two reasons, it is a little tricky to

try to apply to the third. This is where philosophy comes in to answer this

predicament. A commonly held view is that philosophy is the study of ideas

regarding knowledge, truth, and the meaning of life. This definition fits well,

but many other questions are proposed. How does one practice philosophy?

What is the purpose of a philosopher? What is even the point of engaging in

philosophy? Is there a benefit? These are the questions that are answered by

one of the founders of Western philosophy, Socrates. The answers to these

questions can be found in Plato’s Apology and Euthyphro where Socrates

demonstrates the purpose of philosophy through his dialogues with others.

The mission of the philosopher according to Socrates is to use reason and

skepticism to overcome ignorance in order to attain human arête.

Ignorance is a lack of reason and according to Socrates, the first step

to overcome ignorance is to admit one is ignorant. This is perhaps best

summarized during his defense in the Apology, which reads:

I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser

The Purpose of the Philosopher

59

than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know. (Apology, 21e)

Self- proclaimed “wise” men state with absolute certainty that they themselves

are so wise and knowledgeable. An example could be seen in the Euthyphro

where Socrates engages in a dialogue with Euthyphro who is supposedly an

expert on all things religious.

[Euthyphro]: I should be of no use, Socrates, and Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have accurate knowledge of all such things. [Socrates]: It is indeed most important, my admirable Euthyphro, that I become your pupil… (Euthyphro, 5a)

In this dialogue, Socrates poses a very simple question to the self-proclaimed

expert Euthyphro. What is the definition of the pious and impious? In

response to every one of Euthyphro’s answers, Socrates is able to find holes

using reason. Eventually, Euthyphro, knowing he cannot adequately answer the

question, leaves and Socrates is left none the wiser. The irony here is Socrates

is posing as the ignorant one here but is in fact wiser because, unlike

Euthyphro, he admits that there are answers to questions he does not know.

One thing that we see throughout all of Plato’s dialogues is being ignorant is

not a bad thing as long as we admit it and use it as a standing point for growth.

Once we admit our ignorance, we can then focus on figuring out the answer to

said ignorance. This is similar to solving alcohol addiction. The first step is

admitting that there is a problem and going from there to eventually

overcoming addiction. In the case of the philosopher, however, the first step to

overcome ignorance is to admit one is ignorant.

Lawrence Lim

60

One of the most famous key concepts of skepticism in philosophy that

derives from Euthyphro is called the “Euthyphro dilemma”. The dilemma

comes from the quote, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is

it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (Euthyphro, 10a). This question has

been posed to followers of religion who claim their god to be all-loving and all-

powerful. However the quote deconstructs the concept that God can be the

source of morality and instead leads to the following question. Is the standard

of morality external to God or something he himself created? If one agrees to

the first line of reasoning, then it follows that God himself is not the standard

for objective morality. If one agrees to the second line of reasoning, then

God’s morality becomes subjective, and it again means that God is not the

standard for objective morality. The Euthyphro Dilemma is an insoluble

problem that completely vitiates the doctrine of any religion that claims to have

a morally benevolent and omnipotent God. Socrates’ use of skeptical inquiry to

show the inherent flaw in such a being highlights why it is important to be

skeptical of what we are told. Ultimately, philosophy helps us to scrutinize bad

ideas and allows good ideas to be accepted because they are backed by

reasoning.

The following quote probably best summarizes the reason why

Socrates believes human beings should practice philosophy: “...[t]he

unexamined life is not worth living for man” (Apology, 38a). Human beings

have the highest capacity out of any other animal to process and acquire

The Purpose of the Philosopher

61

knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

Human beings have the ability to ponder and question the state of the world

around them. In a sense, humans are the only beings that can achieve arête.

The benefit to doing this is that humans can improve their lives by doing so.

Most animals, by their very nature, only have the basic skills that are necessary

to try to stay alive. For most animals, the task is kill or be killed. Humans,

however, are the first animal to recognize this way of living and essentially

disconnect itself from it. Thus, Socrates argues that the human capacity for

reason is essential for human experience because it is what makes the human

species so unique.

After Socrates is sentenced to death, he leaves the jury with a final

prophecy.

Now I want to prophesy to those who convicted me, for I am at the point when men prophesy most, when they are about to die. I say gentlemen, to those who voted to kill me, that vengeance will come upon you immediately after my death, a vengeance much harder to bear than that which you took in killing me. You did this in the belief that you would avoid giving an account of your life, but I maintain that quite the opposite will happen to you. There will be more people to test you, whom I now held back, but you did not notice it. They will be more difficult to deal with as they will be younger and you will resent them more. You are wrong if you believe that by killing people you will prevent anyone from reproaching you for not living in the right way. To escape such tests is neither possible nor good, but it is best and easiest not to discredit others but to prepare oneself to be as good as possible. With this prophecy to you who convicted me, I part from you. (Apology, 39c-d)

Socrates’ prophecy came true as more philosophers started appearing after

Socrates’ death, such as Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and so many

more throughout humanity’s history since Socrates’ death. Many of these

Lawrence Lim

62

philosophers continued to question the norm, and old ideas that could not

hold up to scrutiny were forsaken while newer ideas that were backed with

reason and evidence prevailed. We have seen this throughout all of human

history. Ideas such as monarchy and despotism were forsaken and democratic

republics have instead prevailed. Human beings now see slavery as an

abhorrent practice when in the past it was seen as the norm, the problems of a

theocratic government where a secular government is better for all, and the list

of the many bad ideas that humans have forsaken goes on. Although this is an

ongoing battle even to this day, it is accurate to say that Socrates’ prophecy

ultimately came true. He was correct in predicting that dogmatism and

ignorance would lose to human reasoning and skepticism.

It is for these reasons that Socrates is considered to be one of the

founders of western philosophy. The mission of the philosopher, according to

Socrates, is to use reason and skepticism to gain a better understanding of the

human experience, and Socrates has proved it time and time again throughout

the Apology and Euthyphro. According to Socrates, the first step to overcome

ignorance is to first admit we are ignorant. We have seen the ill effects of

ignorance first hand and the dark path it leads us, which is why Socrates

advocates reason and skepticism. Socrates saw how important the ability to

ponder and question the state of the world is because it allows us to scrutinize

bad ideas and allows good ideas to be accepted. The human capacity for reason

and logic is essential to the human experience because it what makes the

The Purpose of the Philosopher

63

human species so unique. Socrates’ prophecy about human beings ultimately

came true, and he was correct in predicting that dogmatism and ignorance

would lose to human reasoning and skepticism. It is for these reasons that

Socrates held philosophy in such high regard. Human beings have long

surpassed the days of simple hunting and gathering and have been able to settle

down and build civilizations. Human beings have built infrastructure that is

much more advanced than any beehive or beaver dam. Human beings have

created ways to purify water, improved farming techniques, medicine to heal

illness, and so on. It is because of our higher cognitive function that humans

have been able to improve their lives for the better. If humans were to ever

forget their higher cognitive abilities, we could regress back to barbarism where

Social Darwinism would be the law of the land. Humanity has improved so

much since, however, and it is for these reasons Socrates advocated so strongly

that human beings practice philosophy. Socrates saw that philosophy can lead

human beings to flourish, be happy, and ultimately reach arête.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

64

Ignorance, Truth, Legacy ANTHONY MELENA

In 473 B.C. the philosopher Socrates, of Athens, was put to death for

committing crimes that brought unrest and tension to his community. The

unique manner in which he dissected dogmatic beliefs and hungered for truth

through inquiry led to accusations of corrupting the youth and not believing in

the city’s gods. Yet through his 70 years of life, he never shied away from his

passion, for he did not think of himself as someone who would cause

controversy out of spite or for pure entertainment. The difference between

sophists of the era and Socrates was that while sophists believed themselves to

be wise and know many things, Socrates claimed he was not wise and did not

possess knowledge, thus creating the opportunity for him to learn and question

his world to no foreseeable end. The simple realization of knowing that he

could not know everything or that he could not consider himself wise because

of his status or profession, for example, prevented him from getting lost or

blinded by his own reality. In both the Apology and Euthyphro, written by Plato,

Socrates encourages inquiry through Socratic ignorance, pursuing the truth,

maintaining that these actions would better humanity, despite certain death and

carrying on a life at odds with his community.

Socrates built a reputation for being wise but troublesome early on in

his community, and the unfavorable opinions amassed over time due to his

style of examination: the Socratic Method. In the opening monologue of the

Ignorance, Truth, Legacy

65

Apology, he addresses this idea with the jury. “Men of Athens, this reputation of

mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what

kind of wisdom, I reply, wisdom such as may perhaps be attained by man”

(Apology, 20d). He acknowledges the fact that his ways earned him his

reputation even though they were unlike anything the sophists practiced. He

then recounted the story of the answer the oracle of Delphi gave when asked

who was the wisest of all men. The oracle replied that there was no man wiser

than he. “And yet he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature”

(Apology, 21b). Believing himself quite the opposite, his response was to go

about trying to figure out what it was that the gods could have meant by this.

This mindset explains why Socrates proceeded to find and question all

of the men the society thought of as wise. Politicians, artisans, poets and

sophists alike were tested by Socrates in his quest to find how he could be

wiser than these highly regarded figures. “After long consideration, I thought

of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man

wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand”

(Apology, 21b-c). What he discovered was that the people in these positions

were secure in thinking that they were wise because of the perception that their

occupations made them wise, but in truth their knowledge was limited to their

respective fields. Some, like the poets, were talented writers, but when asked to

delve deeper into the significance of their own words, they could not elaborate

on the meaning of their passages beyond the literal substance. Nevertheless,

Anthony Melena

66

based on the strength of their work, they believed themselves to be wise.

“Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really

beautiful and good, I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and

thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter

particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him” (Apology, 21d).

Perhaps his intention was not to shame anyone, but Socrates addressed a

significant social problem that the rest of the community did not want to face;

too much authority was being given to skilled professionals because of the

flawed beliefs that their abilities made them wise.

Exposing professionals to the idea that they were not as wise as they

thought themselves to be led to Socrates’ creating many dangerous enemies.

For one, the youth of the upper classes in Athens took a liking to the way he

embarrassed those who thought themselves wise and even began imitating him.

They enjoyed making sport out of showing people that their claims to possess

wisdom were false. Upsetting the establishment was not what Socrates had in

mind, but rather encouraging people to question the world around them for

the purpose of enriching one’s knowledge. Secondly, challenges posed by the

Socratic Method chipped away at the foundation of the society’s belief systems

and resulted in more anger from Athenians. Traditions and religious beliefs

that were part of life in Athens had been the dominant way of life and together

constituted a view of the world by which everyone lived, and Socrates’

exploration and subsequent inquiries into matters of the gods threatened the

Ignorance, Truth, Legacy

67

security of the city’s established belief systems. He was aware of the impact his

actions produced, and it is for this reason that he chose to stay out of politics.

Inquiry on an individual basis was more rewarding and did not make him a

hated political figure. It was his belief that had he participated in politics, he

would have been killed for challenging his opponents in his controversial

manner.

As a philosopher, Socrates was very driven to find truth, but he knew

this quest was a difficult one. It came naturally to his fellow Athenians to

construct reality based on the gods, traditions and customs they had grown up

learning about, and it became common for him to engage them, seeking to

learn and teach through inquiry. When Euthyphro came upon him outside the

courts and told him of his upcoming prosecution against his own father, he

referred to the story of Zeus, who had bound his father for devouring his sons.

“And yet when I proceed against my father, they are angry with me. So

inconsistent are they in their way of talking when the gods are concerned, and

when I am concerned" (Euthyphro, 6a). Both parties maintained that the other

was incorrect, never pausing to consider one another. However, while most

people would tend to want to examine physical and contextual evidence,

Socrates demanded to know why it was that Euthyphro felt he alone was in the

right. Euthyphro had no previous training as a prosecutor, but he proclaimed

himself an expert on religious ritual and piety. “Piety is doing as I am doing;

that is to say, prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any

Anthony Melena

68

similar crime—whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be—

that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety” (Euthyphro, 5d-

e). However, when Socrates asks him to define piety, he fails to give a definite,

concrete answer to what piety exactly is, instead offering examples of his pious

actions to support his claims.

Socrates knew that bias, predispositions and prejudicial attitudes were

stronger than fact, especially when they challenged collectively held beliefs.

When he was being tried for corrupting the young and not believing in the

city’s gods, part of his defense entailed convincing the jury to keep an open

mind and not base their final conviction on prior fallacies about his character.

In the eyes of the jury, a wrong that violated the law had been committed, and

it was reason enough to bring him to trial. Likewise, Euthyphro thought that

his intellect's assessment of the situation provided solid justification to bring

his father to trial. In addition, they went against the entity of the city that had

the power to prosecute them. In other words, Socrates and Euthyphro’s father,

despite having valid defenses, had disagreed with the popular beliefs of those

who could harm them.

His unique methods of philosophy were the reason he lived a life at

odds with people in his society, and later the cause of his execution. Yet during

his trial, he maintained that a figure such as himself was nothing but beneficial

for everyone around him. “I am that gadfly which God has attached to the

state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing

Ignorance, Truth, Legacy

69

and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me,

and therefore I would advise you to spare me” (Apology, 30e). Socrates spent

his life exploring the grey areas of people’s alleged knowledge and belief

systems like no one else. The insecurity and tension this produced created a

void, instead of constructive criticism like Socrates intended. Moreover, others

were inspired to recreate similar results, bringing even more attention to the

controversy it produced.

They like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and proceed to examine others; there are plenty of persons, as they quickly discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing; and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me. (Apology, 23c)

His goal was to better humanity and although it was a task that created unrest,

he felt that the reactions themselves were proof enough that his work was

worth something.

Life was not worth living to Socrates if he had to abide by the rules

and expectations of others, and he put his life on the line for his work.

“Wherefore, O men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as

Anytus bids, and either acquit me or not; but whichever you do, understand

that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times” (Apology,

30b-c). He thought that he could see the bigger picture and that even if he was

killed, people would continue to talk about him. For one, his legacy and

reputation was known all over Athens. So much so, that his name had been

given to the main character of a comedy about a mad man who claimed to

Anthony Melena

70

know things of the world and the skies that no one else knew. Secondly, his

death would certainly send a message for people to be wary of behaving as

Socrates had. At the same time however, people would question why it was

that the state had killed a man like Socrates. In the eyes of Socrates, this was a

victory.

Socrates did not fear death, for he did not know what awaited him

when he died. What he knew was that while he existed, the most fulfilling way

in which to live was by learning. Because he lived at a time in history when

dogmatic beliefs were so tied into his society, this included delving into matters

of religion and gods. Ultimately, the unrest and insecurity he had stirred up in

Athens from his youth led to his execution. His mission as a philosopher was

one he never gave up despite the danger. Perhaps begging and promising that

he would put an end to his behavior might have saved him, but Socrates saw

no crime in what he was doing. It was his belief that encouraging people to be

humble, ignorant and recognizing of the truth, was nothing but beneficial and

better for humanity as a whole, and that living an unexamined life was not one

worth living at all.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2009). Euthyphro. The Internet Classics Archive. Online. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html. Plato. (2009). Apology. The Internet Classics Archive. Online.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html.

71

Socrates’ Mission JACQUELINE MENDEZ

A philosopher has a love for wisdom and seeks for human excellence.

Such a person gains theories by exploring their surroundings and questioning

themselves about how they can live a better life. On the other hand, sophists

claim to teach the truth to people, or the knowledge of what is right and

wrong. There are different types of people aroun d the community that seek or

do their best to help others find the meaning of life. However, there is a man

who questions others instead of being questioned, and that person is Socrates.

Socrates had a passion for philosophy that took him to great lengths, which

unfortunately led to an endpoint to his life. He questioned the young and the

wise to gain knowledge of how to make wise decisions, but instead, it led him

to death and trouble. His life was put into jeopardy for speaking the truth that

many disregarded, the truth of living a solid life. Socrates uses the nature of

dialectic to seek foundation in the belief of others, to ensure that their life is

constructed with logic instead of being dogmatic about their beliefs.

In the Euthyphro, Socrates uses Socratic ignorance to determine the

logic Euthyphro has in his beliefs and analyze the motivation and

confidence he had gained that lead him to the court of justice. For one thing,

Socrates is astonished by the retribution Euthyphro is going to make against

his father. Despite the rage he receives from his family, he knows that his

father will not get away with murder. Seeing that, Socrates persuades

Jacqueline Mendez

72

Euthyphro to give him advice based on his wisdom, which enables him to

question about his perspective and how it was gained. As Euthyphro states, "I

would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have accurate

knowledge of all such things” (Euthyphro, 5a). Socrates has a passion for

philosophy and wants to know how to live a better life, which is why he

questions the wise to gain the insight of their enlightenment. However,

Euthyphro sees it as a threat, as if he were stating that he does not know the

roots of what he believes in. Throughout the dialogue, Socrates' professed

ignorance leads to confusion and frustration because Euthyphro was not able

to define what the impious and the pious meant to him. However, Socrates did

not want a personal definition, but a logical one. This leads to Socrates’ trial

and how it led him to the court of justice: “if they think that he makes others

to be like himself they get angry, whether through envy, as you say, or for some

other reason” (Euthyphro, 3c). Socrates’ philosophy is a dialectic he uses among

individuals with whom he speaks. For instance, whenever he speaks to a wise

person, he questions their logic, how they gained that perspective, and where

they acquired that mindset. His goal is not to be critical of people, but to make

them realize the false happiness in which they are living their lives.

Socrates tends to restate facts in a conversation, which is a habit that

many cannot tolerate. To emphasize, he occasionally clarifies the topic to

confirm that the sophists he is speaking to know the question he is answering.

Indeed, he uses this strategy with Euthyphro as they shift from one topic to

Socrates’ Mission

73

another. This frustrates Euthyphro and makes him respond with an answer

that is vague: “I have already said to others that such actions are right, not to

favour the ungodly, whoever they are” (Euthyphro, 5e). Socrates simply asks

Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious

because it is loved by the gods” (Euthyphro, 10a). This is a simple question that

unwraps the beliefs and values of Socrates' interlocutors, making them reflect

on how they constructed their lives, which makes them fear about whether

they have been making the right decisions or not. Moreover, Socrates uses this

method in trial to show the audience the mistakes they are making in believing

the Sophists and making the Sophists reflect on their decisions in life.

In the Apology, Socrates does not ask for forgiveness, but defends his

perspective that he is not wise as the Athenians think he is: “I am very

conscious that I am not wise at all” (Apology, 21b). Rather, "[H]e thinks he

knows something when he does not” (Apology, 21d). In detail, Socrates has

spoken to a number of people and realized that wise men do not know what

the true logic is behind their beliefs, and as a result, neglect that fact despite

their reputations. They believe they know the unknown, when in fact they do

not, making them ignorant of their values. Seeing that, Socrates states that

Meletus does not know the true logic behind the reason why he is making an

accusation: “He says that I am guilty of corrupting the young, but I say that

Meletus is guilty of dealing frivolously with serious matters” (Apology, 24c).

Meletus foolishly makes decisions based on his pride and knowledge, which is

Jacqueline Mendez

74

very limited because he is not a god who is omniscient. Socrates refers to a

horse breeder who cares for horses as a comparison to someone who has

knowledge on how to take care of children. In other words, Socrates tells

Meletus how is it possible for him to corrupt one person and everyone else in

the community and make one person better? The youth can grow with the help

of people who have logic on how to live a better life. If they mature based on a

person’s doxa, or opinions, then their state of mind will be very limited.

Socrates’ practice of dialectic not only expresses the lack of knowledge

Athenians have of their beliefs and values, but also the false priorities they have

gained through their ignorance. The Athenians value social class and wealth,

which can be gained in many ways, even if it includes manipulating themselves

and others. Socrates states, “Wealth does not bring about excellence, but

excellence brings about wealth and all other public and private blessings for

men” (Apology, 30b), and “I shall reproach [a person] because he attaches little

importance to the most important things and greater importance to inferior

things” (Apology, 30a). Excellence is not gained by how one is seen by others,

but how one views oneself. Socrates emphasizes that we should know

ourselves to gain excellence, because if we do not know ourselves, then we

might not seek a talent that can take us to great distances. In addition, other

people will not be able to harm us because we know what is right for us instead

of what only appears right according to others. For this reason, Socrates is not

harmed by the claims the Athenians make about him because he knows that his

Socrates’ Mission

75

actions are justice to god. As he claims, “If you kill the sort of man I am, you

will not harm me more than yourselves” (Apology, 30c). His methods may seem

unjust to the Athenians, but he knows they are pious to god. Despite the

hatred he has gained from them, he will not change his views to be accepted by

everyone else because he knows that is not how it should be to live a good life.

Socrates wants every individual to seek their talents and skills that

defines them because we are not meant to be the same, despite the similarities

we carry. If one neglects their calling, then they are neglecting their true

meaning behind life. Therefore, Socrates states in court, “I think he is doing

himself much greater harm during what he is doing now, attempting to have a

man executed unjustly” (Apology, 30d). We should not be intimidated and make

foolish decisions just because we are afraid, but instead we should take the time

and examine what we need to do to face our fears because a decision made

without thinking twice is the cause of ignorance. In the Apology, he states, “[I]t

is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does

not know” (Apology, 29b). Socrates was sent to court by Meletus, who states

that he cares about the community and Socrates is doing harm to the people.

However, Socrates argues that Meletus does not have logic and asks Meletus

questions to witness whether his motivations or reasoning are true. In the end,

Meletus realizes that he lacks logic, but he hides it by bringing back claims that

he stated before.

Jacqueline Mendez

76

In court, the Athenians managed to sentence Socrates to death, but his

words will always be remembered in the community, as well as the claims he

tried to prove to everyone. Before Socrates is sent to death, he makes this

claim towards the Athenians who have not changed their perspective despite

the conversation they had with him: “I do know, however, that it is wicked and

shameful to do wrong, to disobey one’s superior, be he god or man” (Apology,

29b). In detail, he is speaking about everyone’s belief about their instincts and

neglecting them for false happiness, satisfaction from others and not from

themselves. He questions how they can live that way, to have a position that

will not matter for their soul, but only on earth. He asks, “[A]re you not

ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honours

as possible, while you do not care nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the

best possible state of your soul?" (Apology, 29e). Their focus is on the values

that are relevant only on earth, for the amount of time they must live, instead

of caring about the values they will hold within themselves once they leave

their body and the earth. Their soul is not being cared for or nurtured, which

affects their whole lives in general.

Socrates’ ignorance may have made the Athenians uncomfortable, but

he did his best to make them realize the false satisfaction they are consuming in

their lives. He uses logic to convince them that their community is not

flourishing, despite the physical objects they have around them. Human

excellence is not being gained due to their doxa (opinion) and the pride that is

Socrates’ Mission

77

gained from others. Socrates wants them to break the boundary of depending

on other people’s belief or on other things, and he wants them to gain

independence and confidence from themselves because that is the only way

they will find their true purpose in life. Unfortunately, he failed, but he reminds

the Athenians that there will be people like him, despite his death, because

there is a community out there that has the same beliefs as he does, one that

recognizes ignorance and uses logic.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

78

The Philosopher’s Mission ALEJANDRO PACHECO

In both Plato’s dialogues, the Euthyphro and Apology, Socrates is seen

engaging the rational faculty that challenges dogmatic claims and ways of life.

In the Euthyphro, Socrates engages Euthyphro in a conversation that challenges

his claims of knowledge in ethics, piety, and holiness. Socrates’ aim during this

conversation is to get Euthyphro to firmly commit to what he is saying is true.

Socrates takes the role of the ignorant student and wishes to be educated by

Euthyphro’s self-proclaimed wisdom, inundating Euthyphro with

contradictions to all his claims. Socrates’ aims to showcase that one’s

knowledge is not set in stone unless it can be rationally defended. Plato’s

Apology sees Socrates being put on trial for actions that have disrupted the

established order in Athenian society. His charges consist of corrupting the

youth, not recognizing the gods, and inventing new deities. This trial is a stage

for him to rationally defend his actions and stand by his intellectual position.

Socrates’ principle accuser, Meletus, is called upon and cross-examined by him.

Socrates’ societal challenges exposed gateways to the thought process for the

Athenian citizens that he has “corrupted”. In both dialogues, Socrates was

aware of his own ignorance and sought to actively question the knowledge that

was put forth by his accuser and Euthyphro. Socrates’ overall mission

advocates for a society where the human mind is fully utilized. Socrates

The Philosopher’s Mission

79

achieves his mission by engaging individuals in the discernment of conflicting

knowledge claims with the mindset of Socratic ignorance, living with a

philosopher’s way of thinking, and illustrating to others how human self-

knowledge builds a more fulfilling life.

Socrates’ character was one that never took knowledge at face value,

presenting himself as an individual who knew nothing. One of Socrates’ most

well-known quotes comes from Plato’s Apology, and it states “...[T]he

unexamined life is not worth living for man” (Apology, 38a). Socrates’ awareness

of his lack of knowledge, Socratic ignorance, captivates him to get a sense of

deeper understanding of that which he lacks. He chose to question the

unexamined and the so-called absolute truths that existed around him.

Socrates’ method, used on interlocutors in both of these dialogues, is questing

their individual ignorance. In Euthyphro, when Euthyphro gives only a vague

definition of piety, Socrates pressures him to explain his thought process.

Socrates’ dialectic did not let those who present ideas as fact go unquestioned,

For you know it, if any man does, and I must not let you go, like Proteus, before you tell me. If you had no clear knowledge of piety and impiety you would never have ventured to prosecute your old father for murder. (Euthyphro, 15d)

Socrates’ questioning allows for a deeper understanding of the thought process

of Euthyphro, an individual that is set in his ways of thinking and arguing.

Socrates’ dialectical process produces discussion and aims to give a clearer

understanding of why an individual lacks his proclaimed knowledge. His main

Alejandro Pacheco

80

goal is to fully explore ignorance and make the individual admit his faults

through the philosophy he practices.

Socrates’ take on philosophy was to accept nothing and question

everything. Through Socrates’ way of living, he faced accepted his status in life,

remaining the same man he had always been; this explains his impoverished

lifestyle. Socrates willingly lives in poverty in service to the gods as stated in the

following: “I do not have the leisure to engage in public affairs to any extent,

nor indeed to look after my own, but I live in great poverty because of my

service to god” (Apology, 23b). Socrates’ willingness to dissect whatever

knowledge came his way was not monetarily driven like the ways of a Sophist,

a teacher of philosophy and rhetoric for hire. The false and unsupported

wisdom that sophists spewed was the exact opposite of what Socrates believed.

The philosopher’s primary goal is to seek an absolute truth, while the sophists

lived a life in which they were perfectly content persuading unknowledgeable

individuals of what they claimed to be the truth. Socrates willingly conversed

with any individual that openly listened to him. As he put it, “I do not converse

when I receive a fee, I am equally ready to question the rich and the poor if

anyone is willing to answer my questions and listen” (Apology, 33b). His actions

are not those of a person who lusts for money or fame, just an intellect that

seeks open dialogues with those who are willing to partake in it. The sophists,

however, were not willing to engage the public at large with open discussions;

their doors only opened to the highest bidders. Socrates saw the importance of

The Philosopher’s Mission

81

his way of philosophy, and when arguing against a death sentence he stated,

“…be sure that if you kill the sort of man I say I am, you will not harm me

more than yourselves” (Apology, 30c). If his jurors sentenced him to death, they

would be depriving themselves and their society of an individual who was not

afraid to challenge beliefs and knowledge claims. In his absence, they would be

deprived of a rational mind and be subjected to those that spout their false

wisdom. Socrates wished to live with no sense of fear, to question things, and

to pursue the absolute truth. Socrates’ desire to be excellent allowed not him

not only to pursue a life of mental flourishing with the use of critical thinking,

but to achieve human arête, excellence.

By being well versed in the process of critical thinking, Socrates aimed

to help Athenian citizens to better their lives by helping them realize that they

know nothing. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, but he states, “I

go around doing nothing but persuading both young and old around you not

to care for your body or your wealth in preference to or as strongly as for the

best possible state of your soul” (Apology, 30b). His intent was far from

corruption, but instead to work towards helping individuals realize the

potential of the human mind and understand their individualism in society. By

introducing the young and old to his manner of inquiry, his methods of

strengthening the self can be taught, and he can ultimately introduce them to

the thought process. While defending his actions in the court, he argues that

his actions will inspire individuals to gain nous, the intellect, to argue with

Alejandro Pacheco

82

informed evidence, and to think for themselves. When Euthyphro is examined,

he exhibits the inability to firmly stand for what he claims he believes in, with

Socrates stating, “Perhaps you seem to make yourself but rarely available, and

not to be willing to teach your own wisdom” (Euthyphro, 3d). The dialectical

method that Socrates’ exercises with Euthyphro and the youth of Athens aims

to seeks the admittance of lack of knowledge, for only through this can an

individual recognize he does not know. The supposed corruption of youth is

Socrates’ reaching out, questioning their reality, and rattling the views that have

long been established in their minds, their views on the gods and their views on

who they truly are.

In the end, Socrates’ actions were very much fueled by the notion that

a rich and knowledgeable mind contributed to building a healthy and fulfilling

life. He was not direct in stating this message but illustrated this to those

around him through his willingness to question everything he saw as

contradictory and the use of his method to reach an acceptable answer. His

approach to promoting wellness in others was to challenge claims of

knowledge. The desire to enter an argumentative state with those who wished

it was made ever so evident in his statement, “I never cease to rouse each and

every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I

find myself in your company” (Apology, 31b). In his final discord, Socrates did

not demonstrate a willingness to back down from what drove his

argumentative nature, perpetuating the notion that self-knowledge leads to a

The Philosopher’s Mission

83

more fulfilling life. Socrates’ cross-examination of his chief accuser, Meletus,

portrayed the keen argumentative nature that lead to his goal of guiding

whomever he questioned to the path of self-knowledge. Questioning what is

believed true and the idea that nothing is ever certain are the ideas that Socrates

believed and defended with his life.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University

84

A New Way of Thinking GABRIELA REYES

Socrates was a philosopher who sought to know the truth about the

world and apply his knowledge to society. People in Athens were living by the

gods, and they did not question their lifestyle, unlike Socrates. While Socrates

was in Athens, he was summoned to court and put on trial for walking around

Athens questioning people. Plato was a philosopher who introduced Socrates

in two of his dialogues: the Apology and Euthyphro. The dialogues show

Socrates’ pursuit of knowledge with Euthyphro, and his defense on his trial. In

both dialogues, Socrates’ mission was to be able to engage in rationality to

make a transition towards arête, human excellence, so people can benefit and

make judgements for themselves.

Socrates was a lover of wisdom, and it set him apart from people

categorized as Sophists. Socrates was classified a philosopher because he

sought truth, and he did not ask for money when he would talk to people. On

the other hand, Sophists were people who claimed to have extensive

knowledge, and they would get paid by the people, so they can teach their

children. In the Apology, Socrates states, “I have never been anyone’s teacher”

(Apology, 33b). Since Socrates did not consider himself to be a teacher, he was

not going around ‘teaching’. Instead, he engaged in conversations with people

to seek the truth in statements, or endoxa, true opinion. Socrates began his

quest for the truth when the Oracle of Delphi stated that there is no man wiser

A New Way of Thinking

85

than he. Socrates, however, did not believe the oracle, and he sought to seek

the truth of this statement. Socrates was unique and not considered a Sophist

because he believed he did not know everything, and it did not make him the

wisest man. Through his quest for endoxa, Socrates states, “It is indeed most

important, my admirable Euthyphro, that I should become your pupil”

(Euthyphro, 5a). Socrates began to engage in conversation with Euthyphro, and

he finds a common ground on “divine matters” (Euthyphro, 16a). Socrates

wants to learn from other people because he believes they may have answers

he does not have. However, Socrates does analyze every statement to be able

to reach the true opinion about matters and encourages Euthyphro to engage

in rational thought. Socrates starts questioning Euthyphro, and it makes him

reevaluate his beliefs. Instead of teaching material to people, Socrates made

people think and reevaluate their statements. It caused people to dislike

Socrates because of his questioning of life itself; they claimed he was a

nonbeliever when all he wanted to know was the truth about the gods and life.

People in Athens went about their lives with religion dictating how

their lives should be lived; however, Socrates challenged religious normative

claims, and the people dogmatically opposed the new claims Socrates

presented. After visiting the Oracle of Delphi, Socrates questioned individual

life, and the gods that controlled people’s lives. The dogmatism people had

Gabriela Reyes

86

towards thinking rationally cost Socrates his life. However, Socrates did not

cease to talk about being able to reason and engage in logic for the sake of a

better lifestyle. Socrates and Euthyphro were conversing about the gods, and

Socrates compares the actions of the gods to the action of human beings.

Socrates argued that the gods are viewed as good and just, but they had

disagreements and murders, contradicting their claims of just actions relative to

humans (Euthyphro, 9). Socrates analyzes that people were following the role

models of the gods, who claimed to be just, but they were not just within

themselves. Since Socrates challenged their notion of god, people were not

pleased with the claims he was proposing. People in Athens grew up with

established views passed from their families on to them for generations. When

Socrates introduced a new way of thinking about religion, people were instantly

offended and dogmatic about their views. Socrates is not purposely questioning

the gods because he is a nonbeliever. Instead, Socrates wants to know why the

gods are looked up to if they do not seem good with their actions. In the

Apology, Socrates states, “I shall call upon the god at Delphi as witness to the

existence and nature of my wisdom, if it be such” (Apology, 21). The people

claim that Socrates was a corruptor of the youth and that he believed in new

gods. Socrates knows that his curiosity and quest for the truth was sent from

the divine. Socrates knows he was put as a person on this world for a reason,

and the reason was to seek truth in human life. Even though Socrates engaged

in logic and reason, he did not consider himself an atheist or a nonbeliever.

A New Way of Thinking

87

Socrates still referred to religious events and acts, but he did question the very

nature of them. Being dogmatic, however, would not help reaching the truth or

reaching excellence as a person. Socrates believed that people have a mind to

be able to make decisions of their own without having god or religion telling

them what is right or wrong. Socrates wants people to engage with their reason

to be able to make wise decisions that would benefit everyone in Athens.

However, the people in Athens did not like the idea, and they conformed to

the religious norms. Despite Socrates’ attempt to defend his case, he was

sentenced to death, but Socrates still relied on reason to defend his case in

court.

In addition, the realization of Socratic ignorance is a part of the

transition to human excellence that a person needs to go through. People who

are aware that they do not know it all are not dogmatic; Socrates realized that

he does not know everything as the Sophists claimed they did. With the

realization of not knowing everything, people are more open-minded, or more

rational about situations. Socrates states, “An unexamined life is not worth

living” (Apology, 38a). Socrates believed that without examining life, there is no

true point in living. Engaging in rational inquiry means examining life, and the

people in Athens did not examine their lifestyle. Socrates wanted people to

start to be more rational which would enhance their way of living. Socrates was

not dogmatic, and it lead him to Socratic wisdom. To have Socratic wisdom

means being a step closer to reaching human excellence. By acknowledging

Gabriela Reyes

88

that as a person meant that people were examining their lives. Towards the end

of the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates states, “What a

thing to do, my friend! By going you have cast me down from a great hope I

had, that I would learn from you the nature of the pious and impious”

(Euthyphro, 16). Socrates and Euthyphro did not reach a definite answer on

what pious and impious meant. Socrates, however, did make Euthyphro engage

in a conversation where he made an analysis of the claims he was stating.

Euthyphro eventually gave up on trying to think of a definite definition, and

lets Socrates go on about impiety and piety. Socrates wanted Euthyphro to

engage in rational thought and reach a definition that would change the way

people lived. Similarly, Socrates wanted the people in Athens to ask questions

and engage in reason to be able to make better judgements. However, the

people did not come out of their dogmatism, and they did not want to accept

the change Socrates was proposing. Citizens of Athens did not want their

children to grow up with the beliefs of Socrates and thus decided he was

dangerous to society. Even though Socrates did not come to a definite

definition for piety, the beliefs he held would later change society, mostly

through the teachings of his followers.

To be able to reach a life of excellence, the full potential of mind is

needed; however, to do that, one must engage in reason first. Socrates held the

belief that rationality leads to better decisions about life and reality. Socrates

demonstrated this belief in his interaction with Meletus in court. In the Apology,

A New Way of Thinking

89

Socrates questioned Meletus’ statements about him being the corruptor of the

youth, and Meletus' view that every person in Athens was better than Socrates

himself (Apology, 25b). Socrates does not accept Meletus' statement that one

person can corrupt the youth while everyone else improves them. Socrates

knows that he is not forcing the youth to listen to him; the youth come to him

to hear him talk. Socrates then continues and lets the jury know that “Meletus

has never been at all concerned with these matters” (Apology, 26b). Socrates

states that Meletus did not thoroughly think through his claims or actions

before presenting them in the trial. In Euthyphro, Socrates engages in dialectic

with Euthyphro and asks, “Then let us again examine whether that is a sound

statement, or do we let it pass?” (Euthyphro, 9e) Socrates was asking for the

definition of piety and examined every doxa that Euthyphro stated. Socrates

was going through the process of questioning to be able to get to the endoxa,

or true opinion of the definition of piety.

Socrates was an unusual man in his time; he was out in the streets

talking to people and examining their statements and opinions. Socrates was

not a man who would get in trouble with the law; however, he was put on trial

and killed for his novel claims that troubled society. The people in Athens were

threatened by Socrates because they thought he was a nonbeliever and a

corruptor of the youth because of his intention to seek truth. Socrates wanted

to seek truth to be able to achieve arête, which included engaging in rationality

and the realization of Socratic ignorance. Even it was claimed that Socrates was

Gabriela Reyes

90

the smartest man, Socrates knew he did not know everything, and that set him

apart from the Sophists who claimed to know everything. However, the

common people felt threatened because Socrates introduced a new way of

living in Athens. The people were used to living by the gods, and they thought

that their children should be raised learning the same. Socrates’ ultimate goal

was for the people to use rationality to enhance their way of living, resulting in

arête, or human excellence.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University

’

91

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission SHADY SAID

The Apology and Euthyphro are philosophical records that were written

by the ancient Athenian philosopher Plato. These two pieces are believed to be

some of the most authentic accounts of Socrates' defense of his philosophy

before the Athenian Council for the charges pressed against him. The charges

that the Athenian Council had pressed against Socrates were impiety in not

believing in the Athenian gods and corrupting the youth with his teachings.

Socrates’ defense in the text of the Apology clarifies his philosophical outlook to

life and his divine mission, which was influenced by the gods themselves. The

text of Euthyphro shows Socrates’ method of question and elimination to seek

truth. Socrates is the biggest questioner of everything and everyone. In these

two texts, he defends that the mission of a true philosopher is to search for

truth in order to achieve the perfection of the soul by the means of the

admission of one’s ignorance and Socratic skepticism, which essentially

contradicted ancient sophistry.

In the Apology, an early accusation, which lacked true foundations, that

was directed to Socrates was that he was a “teacher, and takes money” (Apology,

19e). He was indicted for being a sophist whose mission is to teach people how

to turn weak arguments into winning cases, and that he did it in exchange for

payment. In reality, Socrates never had an actual classroom or specific sets of

Shady Said

92

instructions or gave formal lectures. Therefore, he never received any

payment for his teachings. His main audience was Athenian congregations in

public places, people on the streets, the marketplace, or the houses of

acquaintances talking only out of the passion of guiding people. His response

to these allegations was, “I never took any pay or asked for it…[The] witness

[is] my poverty” (Apology, 31c). Socrates was in fact a poor man, which

disproves the unsupported accusation. If he were a true sophist, he would have

been as rich as the others who claimed a firm grasp on wisdom. Moreover, we

understand from his defense that his mission is a moral one that resulted from

his devotion to soul-searching.

Although Socrates was accused of sophistry, the announced reason

why he was summoned to the courthouse was that he was “guilty of corrupting

the young and of not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in

other new spiritual things” (Apology, 24b). Analysis into the real reason behind

the trial, however, revealed their opposition to his philosophical way of life and

his anti-democratic teachings. Socrates was accused of being pro-oligarchy,

where a small group holds the power in the city; although he was not very

politically active, many of his pupils were against democracy. This

generalization was part of the hidden basis on which the Athenian Council

formed their charges. Socrates refuted all the allegations posed by the council

and explained how he was “ordered to practice this by the god from

divinations, and from dreams” (Apology, 33c). Socrates saw that he was the

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission

93

god’s messenger who was sent in order to spread his teachings of true

philosophy, which, in essence, is admitting the lack of knowledge. Therefore,

Socrates’ mission is a divine one that is approved by the Oracle. As to the

corruption of youth, young people chose to follow Socrates as he never forced

his teachings on anyone; they in fact appreciated questioning others who

claimed to possess knowledge yet knew little (Apology, 23c).

Not only had the gods ordered him his practices, but the Oracle of

Delphi had testified “that no one was wiser” (Apology, 21a) than Socrates. That

was the point at which Socrates started his real mission to investigate wisdom

and the riddle behind the Oracle’s claim. In trying to prove his lack of wisdom,

he, in fact, grew more aware of his possession of true wisdom. From his

encounters with many people who claimed to possess wisdom, he always

reached the conclusion that those who believed they were wise in fact knew

very little. Instead of these people venturing to understand Socrates, they

turned against him for showing them their ignorance. Socrates defended his

case before the council by admitting that he himself did not prove their

ignorance due to his greater knowledge but because he did not “know, neither

[did he] think [he] knew” (Apology, 21d). This is what the Oracle meant: by

comprehending the worthlessness of one’s wisdom, one can achieve wisdom.

When Socrates reached this realization, he began the enactment of his mission.

It was his understanding of the Oracle’s words that aided him in

carrying out his mission. His goal was to help Athenians reach perfection of

Shady Said

94

the soul as the gods bade him by “…seeking and investigating in accordance

with the god any townsman or foreigner [he] supposed to be wise” (Apology,

23b) to show them that they did not really know as much as they thought. By

constantly reaching out to people as often as he possible could, Socrates

conditioned them to slowly accept his moral message. This method of

persuasion may irritate people for some time, but it was the only way Socrates

could shake the steadfast beliefs that had been instilled in people in order to

help them reach the state that is desired by the god who sent him. Socrates

proved in the trial that the ones to blame for not fulfilling the message of the

gods were the Athenians themselves. He turned the accusations against them

as he said, “…you care for having as much money as possible, and reputation,

and honor, but...you neither care for nor give thought to prudence, and truth”

(Apology, 29e). The same Athenians who claimed they worshipped the gods

with all their hearts cared only about materialistic matters of wealth and

authority, but they had not thought about the importance of goodness and

truth to achieve a state of arête, or excellence, of the soul.

The method of obtaining and assessing the truth in order to reach

goodness is more evident in the text of Euthyphro as enacted through the

elenchus, or the Socratic method. Socrates relied on the process of questioning

and answering in hopes of assessing the refutability of claims. When Socrates

meets Euthyphro on his way to the courthouse, Socrates seized the chance to

inquire about how people defined piety and whether they even knew how to

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission

95

approach the process of defining it. This scene is not intended only to seek the

definition of piety, but to put on display the entire integrated thought process

of assessing a subject by posing questions that would filter out unlikely

answers. This shows when Socrates asked Euthyphro, “…[W]hat sort of thing

do you say the pious and impious are, with respect to murder and other things

as well?” (Euthyphro, 15e). Socrates posed that same question numerous times

in the dialogue in different forms in order to test Euthyphro’s understanding of

his own case. It is sensible that Socrates expected some plausible explanation

since Euthyphro was on his way to do the utterly unusual: prosecute his own

father. This is typical of the Socratic skepticism that serves as a detector of

contradictory arguments and unclear meanings.

Socratic skepticism is Socrates’ dialectical method for revealing the

inconsistencies and self-contradictions involved in popular statements and

responses made without thinking about their logical implications. Therefore,

this Socratic method is never an attempt to definitively answer a certain

question, but to question every possible answer; that ties back to his mission of

finding the pure truth. The search for truth is seen when Socrates asked

Euthyphro to tell him what he thought was holy and what was unholy. The

immediate and most logical response to Euthyphro at the moment was that

"what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy”

(Euthyphro, 7a). This response, which was provoked by Socrates’ elenchus, was

not very accurate. However, that proposed answer was refuted because Greek

Shady Said

96

gods fought, and they did not all have the same preferences. The dialogue

continued in the same manner of questions and refutable answers until we see

the same conclusion Socrates always reached which is that Euthyphro still

thought he had enough wisdom to confidently know “what is holy and what is

not” (Euthyphro, 15e) although he gave no solid answers to Socrates. To extract

the most from Euthyphro, Socrates treated Euthyphro as the teacher when in

fact Socrates was practicing his usual method on Euthyphro. In this dialogue,

we do not only see the enactment of Socrates’ mission, but we are presented

with the reason why the Athenian Council claimed that Socrates did not believe

in the city’s gods. There are two different views of religion; one of these is

illustrated in Euthyphro's view of religion as a benefit-oriented process;

offering gifts to the gods and receiving benefits from them. The other religious

view is the one held by Socrates, who did not simply accept many of the tales

concerning the gods, and sought not materialistic offerings, but the

concentration of his efforts into the moral message the gods sent him to

deliver.

Though Athenians did not appreciate his role as a gadfly in his life,

Socrates still practiced his mission of igniting the desire for finding the truth in

people. He believed that pure truth can be reached through the admission of

lack of knowledge and wisdom, and through the constant questioning of

proposed claims to every posed question; the main goal of his divine mission is

to reach the perfection of the soul. In Euthyphro, we were introduced to the

Socrates’ Philosophical Mission

97

Socratic elenchus through which Socrates refutes false truths and leaves his

opponent with an internal sense of shameful ignorance after having claimed

wisdom. In the Apology, we see the charges of disparaging the city’s gods and

corrupting the youth that were pressed against Socrates and how he defends

his beliefs to promote his philosophical lifestyle and explain his mission of

perfection of the soul. Furthermore, he turns the tables against the Athenian

Council to point out the inconsistency in their beliefs as they claim piety, yet

were only passionate about wealth and power.

REFERENCES

Plato. (2014) "Apology". In The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University.

Plato. (2014) "Euthyphro". In The Great Conversation: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Ed. N. Melchert. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. New York: Oxford University