Socrates and Euthyphro's discussion on Piety

     I am currently reading a book on Greek philosophy and there had been a specific event which had truly struck me: where Socrates and Euthyphro debate and analyze the importance or ill-importance of piety. 

Euthyphro and Socrates gather as many of the civilians of Athens begin to ponder about Socrates' wisdom, as he is to not be viewed as an immoral, prophecy of Greece, but of an insane man shouting to the streets. Euthyphro begins to sympathize to him and try to re-stabilize Socrates' confidence and pride. Whilst this attempt had been made, Socrates began to elaborate on the issues of Euthyphro; where he is shunned among his family and people due to the prosecution of his own father, a very looked-down upon action towards the grace of a family. He wondered (Euthyphro): was this impious of me?

Piety, in so many cultures, is a significant part of tradition and history. Members of society, whether wealthy or poor, must abide by the commandments or regulations of a religion and/or belief instilled within a civilization. In this case, the Greeks were highly known for their belief in the many gods and goddesses of the Earth and Planet. While Greece had their beliefs to polytheism and others had monotheism (such as Christianity), the same concept of pleasing one's superior is a redundant part of history. In this event, Euthyphro believes he has been such a failure and villain to not only the people of the city, but of the Gods above. Socrates questions his belief: how can prosecuting a man of murder, whether relative nor acquaintance, be an impious action that the Gods shall so dishonor on his name? Socrates, as clever and intelligent as he was, constantly challenged Euthyphro, another scholar whose beliefs seemed illiterate at the time. Socrates argued, "how and why are actions impious or pious?" As the argument led on, Euthyphro seemed to look more redundant each time he spoke or shed light upon Socrates' questions. 

"But if the god-beloved and the pious were the same, my dear Euthyphro, and the pious were loved because it was pious, then the god-beloved would be loved because it was god-beloved, and if the god-beloved was god-beloved because it was loved by the gods, then the pious would also be pious because it was loved by the gods; but now you see that they are in opposite cases as being altogether different from each other: the one is of a nature to be loved because it is loved, the other is loved because it is of a nature to be loved."

Socrates was quite the man with words, eh? While this took me hours to fully understand, Socrates' strategy to simply flip words around create new definitions and meanings to phrases and sentences that had been one thing, and easily altered to the next. The pious in which Euthyphro believed in was of a system; a system of ethics that were created by a seedling that was planted generations before his. This is why Euthyphro could not decipher the difference between the piety of a god's interest and the piety of natural human ethics. Socrates wanted the young Euthyphro to understand his twist of words; how important it was to understand the meaning of whatever came through his mouth. This was not only the significant part of their argument, but of the nature in which "right" and "wrong" are completely abolished due to the leaders which have say in what is "right" or "wrong".

I feel as if I can correlate this argument to the works of society. Euthyphros, just as we as humans today are, was a victim of an issue much bigger than him and that had been planted centures before him: the alteration of right and wrong. Euthyphro suffered from understanding that what he did was truly right; to prosecute a murderer which, too, was his father. But because mythology and religion which he believed in thought otherwise, it was difficult for him to understand his own choices and thoroughly understand why they were either right or wrong. To basic human knowledge, what Euthyphro had done was completely sane and appropriate, but to the eyes of Gods, or whom ever created them and their beliefs, his actions were wrong due to the interruption between a man and his son's loyalty. 

If you think about, we as civilians are similar to Euthyphro. The Gods that had so judged Euthyphro in his head can be the leaders of our world right now: policeman, the government, politics, entertainment, etc. The court room is no more angelic than of the streets due to its power to manipulate regulations and laws to run throughout society. An event relating to Euthyphro's debate can be Edward Snowden. Immediately as news broke out to his actions, he had been so questioned to whether he was a criminal or a hero. Must we question the amount of evil or righteousness a man has due to the core of idealism that had been so corrupted: right or wrong? The government, a high and mighty stature of American society, had been exposed to its involvement in invading the priacy of billions via internet usages, but Edward Snowden is still the villain? Using ideology from Greek philosophy to this event, it seems as though the government instilled laws which THEY believed worked for society, so it was planted centuries ago to be able to perform illicit, repulsive actions in order to benefit themselves (the wealthy). It is not the fault of our current government (wholesomely) because their ancestors, men like Andrew Jackson or President Polk, created a country that had manipulated what was right or wrong to be able to please themselves, but does that make everything they want right, to be right? 

This is the exact argument Socrates had up against Euthyphro. Was it impious for a man to report the killing of another man? No, it certainly was not, but because Gods and Goddesses relied on the loyalty of man and son rather than the entire life of a human being, the perception which Euthyphros held varied between people who believed in Gods' piety or natural ethics. 

The world is surely filled with corruption: from our television screens, to our everyday policeman, to even the clothes we wear; it all involves some sort of manipulation or disillusionment to be able to continuously influence our generation. Its a system that cannot be stopped because it had been so carefully planted generations before us. It is a matter of time where the leaders of our world will e=be portrayed as Gods; of immoral beings sought to supposedly "create" a better world...for themselves. 

Political Cartoon: America’s Notorious Gang

Don Dela Cruz

    I chose this particular cartoon because its significance is the deeper meaning to the picture, which is also very obvious by the visual imagery. The cartoon entitles “Join, or DIE”, a phrase specifically placed to be alerting and outlining throughout the picture. Aside from the bold words written across the picture, we have behind it a snake which is divided into different pieces containing acronyms which seem to be different states. What exactly did this picture have in mind to send as a message to its viewers? This is why and what we are here to find out.

    This cartoon stands out through all the humorous, visually-strong cartoons that I can find due to its significance in time era and rarity through originality. What I mean is that this image is an early political poster created by Benjamin Franklin. Why must one of our most highly viewed men in our culture use such vulgarity and precise deaconess to possibly persuade an audience to “join” some sort of organization that had planned? At first, it didn't make sense to me; why would such a lawful and righteous time such as then use such a dark, malevolent message behind? It all made sense: this picture dignifies the darkness and the illicit behavior we have always influenced onto our society. All these wrongful and ridiculous warfares and bloodshed seemed to never make sense until now. Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers, is simply stating that the political union is not of truth, honor, or nobility, but of power, strength, and loyalty. It shows the true American idealism---the truth America in the flesh. The snake is also a symbolic way of representing our country and its intentions; as the country slithers through the high, green weeds and grasses throughout the Western plains. The snake, as mentioned, is divided into particular states which indicate the power that many of the founded colonies/town had begun to acquire through unity and political power. The fact that symbolism and historical importance comes together to one into a large picture shows how relatively easy it is for a community and country to be conveyed by such a simple picture such as this one. The phrase “Join, or DIE” is a message that is presumably what it means; join the government’s side or you will be attacked, desecrated, banished, and anything other word to suffice to your abolishment on this country or life.

    It is truly horrific to see our society direct into its own being, becoming a dark entity enthrilled by the acts of violence, corruption, and the need to oppress the weak, but what makes it even more sick is how we had been so blinded for so long and we had not seen the birth of darkness hatch right before our eyes----before our historians, our politicians, and oblivious, possible heroes. This picture is like digging up a time capsule that presents a prompt to protect society by fighting future issues. By finding this picture, I realize how easily manipulated we have been to miss such a large, iconic picture such as this to alert our society that it is a message: evil does exist and it runs our government. Evil not in the mythological, fictional sequence of large wings, sharp fangs, and horrendously blade-like claws, but of men, viewed as heroic and influential, to be the same men we fear today: terrorists, burglars, murderers, etc. “Join, or DIE” is a quote that would mean so much more than Benjamin Franklin had ever portrayed it to be: it would be the epitome of violence and demeanor towards an innocent society that only followed its leaders due to believing they were, too, longing for righteousness and improvement. We have seen this in the news before or our history books; whether you are a black man or a white man, if you do not abide by the gang of suited men, then you shall feel the wrath of power that cannot be justified nor can it be made right---and that’s how we must live---for the power is in the hands of the criminal as we are sought to follow his orders.

The Steel on JFK: Question 2

J.F.K and the Steel Industry 

*http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-communism-has-never-come-to-power-in-a-country-that-was-not-disrupted-by-war-or-corruption-or-both-john-f-kennedy-100683.jpg

  

     In various situations in which persuasion and convincing arguments came to hand, rhetorical strategies and reason become a man's best friend. In 1962, America had almost reached rock bottom when the economy of the country began to fall. But within the specs of ash and dust, Americas began to reunite itself to being whole again. Through the dim light shining through struggle, one particular event held the U.S on a thread; the steel industry began to raise prices for the sake of selfish greed and power. Let's evaluate the person who fought against this disillusionment: John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

     Of all the Americans who sought to seize the existence of corruption, there was John Fitzgeral Kennedy. Although he himself made mistakes during presidency, one of his iconic attemps to save the country was to antagonize steel companies whom were raising product prices. "If the rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos..." J.F.K shows evidence of using intellectual persuasion into his speech: by including the lives of the citizens. His usage of involving people was an advantage of using emotional appeal to engage readers and the audience. Another strong use of rhetorical strategies had been the technique of reinstating the many lives and occupations that would be affected by the many issues burdened upon the nation, using symptahy and contemporary connection (1962) to how the world is and will be without the fighting of raising prices. Let's also look at some of the comaprisions and supporting evidence that J.F.K uses to state the issue; with such a long sppech, he ought to catch the attention of at least some. 

     Though Mr. Kennedy's intentions were to heavily affect the audience and industries who has interefered with politics, the speece itself reinterates a noble usage of rhetorical strategies and appeals to connect fact and emotion to come into play, while also using the truth and statistics to back up his main argument. Using present events such as confliction in the Vietnam/Cold War, Kennedy emits an argument revolviing around the pain and trouble found already in such a large controversory of war, and having steeling being raised financially can affect the country's money, which was immensly needed at the time. "...a few gigantic corporations have devided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilites." This method was one in which the speaker analyzed the audience to be victims of the industry, too, and that the industries also have targeted the U.S Government. This causes the audience, or reader, to have the desire to want and anticipate this particular issue. 

    Other than his involvement in the Cold War and a beautiful, blonde vixen, John F. Kennedy is recognized to one of his manipulative quotes stating: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This quote is essentially a clever, stealthy way to use rhetoric strategies against the community. John Kennedy might have been one of the smartest presidents and iconic leaders this world has seen due to the fact that he has used rhetorical strategies and intellectual manipulation to be able to persuade, evaluate, and hide information from his viewers. Was the president a bad one? I am not one to judge, but as a writer, I can tell his skill and knowledge has amplified his ability to lead and control a country.

"...Now I'm Scared"

By: Zen Pencils

"...Now I'm Scared."

  I, as a person, believe everyone living and breathing in our world has a purpose and we all have possibilities to do anything we set our minds to. As vague as this ideal is, not many aspects of life as a 21st century student and child has boosted my will to strive for much more than I believe I can do. Education, in my opinion, is within our grasps everywhere and anywhere. The school system has been truly a positive development throughout mankind's history; people generations before would kill for the type of education and privileges we are handed freely, but school is not the only facility of learning. Learning, by definition, is "the act or process of acquiring skill or knowledge" School definitely takes a large role of directing students and children to the right path; the path to understanding how important education and knowledge overall really is, but school cannot be the only lane in which everyone shall and can take to success. It takes more than large textbooks to teach a student that he or she is truly useful to society. Despite the incredibly illicit and violent reputation we have as a country, one thing many nations cannot take away from us is the amount of opportunities we have: we can reach success with or without school institutionalization. 

   This particular cartoon by Zen Pencils truly inspired me not as a student but as a thinker---as someone who cannot measure to the authorities' opinions and desires in the academic system. Maybe when I am out of the school system as well, my abilities will not satisfy or suffice to a higher employer or maybe my love and personality won't be enough for a lover, but I must understand that there are so many ways of living life, yet we aren't being shown that pathway. It's as like we are on a long, steep hike which seems to have only one pathway. While many walk along the path paved for them, you wonder how the hikers at the top of the mountain arrived there so fast---did they fly, did they run, did they teleport there?! They didn't follow the path given to them, and their steps show  very difficult obstacles, so how did they succeed? You disregard their abilities on how/why they got there so fast, so you continue to walk along the paved road. There are signs that frequently remind you that it is "This Way" or "The Right Path", but realistically that paved way is not for everyone; not everyone has the endurance, the knowledge, the will to get up that one track. You then witness the struggles and failures of others; these people are assumed to be weak or hopeless because they cannot go up the hike which is recommended to them. Did these "weak" or "feeble-minded" people fail to their own expectations, or the expectations of others?  Though my story cannot truly compare the struggles of overall human concept of success to a hike, it expresses the possibilities of everyone and anyone who is wiling to succeed.

   Malcolm X famously said "By any means necessary" in the form of aggression towards fighting oppression and segregation in the 1960's Civil Rights Movement, but for the millennials and up-and- coming generations, are we still being oppressed? Oppression, not in the form of brutality or violence, but the shape of  "a wolf in sheep's clothing", because we are being oppressed and subjugated by the higher officials; whether it would be managers, bosses, politicians, and even presidents. Darwinism also supports the idea that man will and has taken a step backwards instead of forward through evolution because we simply cannot improve a society that is based on violence, greed, and control. The same people making corporations and jobs do not want individuality and creativity, they want the students and people willing to do anything and everything he or she says, which is a slave, or in modernistic terms, a robot. The interference of a man with a conscious can affect a business; the way in how they truly get their money. People with conscious are the same people who have been killed or prosecuted: Abraham Lincoln (killed by an antagonistic Confederate), Malcolm X (killed by members of his own religion who found him to be too powerful), J.F.K (killed by an unknown suspect but remains to be reasoned for his exposure to US corruption), Edward Snowden (wanted for his exposure of US actions to invade citizens' private conversations), and countless more have been disembarked and engaged to retaliate from their positions to fight oppression, or it shall come to death somehow. These heroes and legends leave their name into our nation, not as heroes, but as individuals; as icons and brazen soldiers to an illicit government and life. Then there is the side which believes in order and guided pavements, where shall this take us?

    While ranting about the negativity of having to abide by institutionalization, what are some of the benefits and pros about this side? School is a large part of my argument, which I believe seems to become the one and only way to become successful in this life of various opportunities, but I do also believe that school was never and still does have good intentions. School teaches us students to become fascinated and intrigued by our involvement in society. School encourages us as individuals to be guided to a future which can benefit both society and man through his and its struggle. Just as school, the concept of education and higher knowledge is simply inspiring but cannot be assessed in a single-filed, mandatory way. You cannot expect students to strive extremely well in every subject because it does not define the goodness in mankind: we are not perfect. Will having straight A's on the piece of paper called a report card have such a dramatic alteration to my well being and life as a human being? If you live in the 21st century, it is true that you must abide by these restrictions. In the cartoon, it points on how the system of the world simply gives you a piece of paper showing others that you are capable of work. Are we so minimal, so low, so degraded that we as a part of the world must be given a piece of paper to enable others to believe I can and shall accomplish? Must I have a paper inquire letters and numbers like 4.0 or As to define who I truly am? I believe these grades and academic scores do show significance; it shows others what I can, as a worker, can do to please my boss, nothing more. This 4.0 GPA does not grant me access to explore the world or solve world conflicts, but grants me a chance at spending thousands of dollars years later in another facility which falsely replicates the realities of the world or to prove to an employer that I am a good listener. This is not of rebellion----not of the defiance to man, not of attacking man's wrong doings---but of the actions that should and will be taken as my own person to set ambitious goals and sail into the direction where I want my future to be . If a student, so overwhelmed by the rules he had been given by society, had accidentally made a mistake to not meet academic standards, is he truly a failure? Will the effect of a B on his 4.0 GPA cause atrocious, maniacal changes to how his life and expectations would be perceived? Sadly, due to the way society accommodates enslavement and manipulation, yes, his or her life will be affected due to academic lack-there-of. But the world causes us to believe that because we cannot succumb to such academic struggles, that we cannot become what we want; we cannot be innovators, the new Steve Jobs or the Bill Gates of our generation, for what, a couple of letters and grades that defies the true meaning to creativity, individualism, and difference? That is what is wrong with society: being out of the box or different makes us look like black sheep while we are all truly beautiful. Our creator, whether a man in the sky or a scientific theory, made us different and unique in every characteristic. 

    The fact is, we sometimes cannot suffice to the standardized beliefs of humans around the world. We have forgotten basic human rights, ethics, and beliefs to simply learning to please one another: to please your parents, to please your teachers, to please your bosses, and more, and what if you cannot reach their wants and desires? You are admitted into jail, or into a facility that degrades your value as a human. The picture above is much more than a tale of school institutionalization; its a tale of realization, adventure, born-again values, and life passed the single-filed line. It takes more than a piece of paper to accomplish success; it takes time, patience, innovation, uniqueness, and much more than just a grade that your childhood teacher gave you. The enslavement of man has never been uplifted because we have always been enslaved by the higher authority in which holds us inferior---this is basic, evil human nature as we know it. Understanding the values of life just becomes much more than getting grades, but to become a better me. To find ambition in oneself can be beautiful and explosive: the expanding of one's knowledge can go from learning new things everyday to trying new things everyday. One John Mayer lyric truly sums up my argument on the system "You read all the books, but you can't find the answers..." This line truly amazes me because it involves so much more than books: our society outlines textbooks and school to be the only specific way of learning, but learning is all around us. You can pick up a tremendous amount of intelligence through the works of your own curiosity. Instead of measuring intelligence by paper and pencil, one should measure intelligence through experience, creativity, and curiosity. President Roosevelt once said, "Life must be lived and curiosity kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life."

      In the end, it is up to you to decide what you want to be. Even if takes years and years to overthrow obstacles given to you by the standardized, modern world, you can be and do anything you want this life offers you if you have will, desire, and persistence to get it. Life is all around you, but instead of sitting in a chair, living life in repetition, you must grasp life everyday with bitter curiosity and defiance towards the tedious life we live. Many just live their lives thinking they have succeeded in life, but only work succeeded them. They live abiding by a schedule at school; waking up, going to school, study, then go to sleep. Then years later, they get a job, surprise, more repetition; wake up, get to work, sit behind a desk for hours, then go home to do the same thing all over again. Life is about grabbing the bull by its horns; you have to truly live through intuition, not ludicrous, through curiosity, not evasiveness. If you want to become a lawyer, train yourself to learn how to elaborate and speak to others---develop your assets as a lawyer, not as a worker. If you are planning to become a mechanic, fix that old car your dad couldn't---study its engine, from the transmission to the smallest fuse. If you want to be a writer, initiate priorities for you to improve in ways that no other author could and create stories no one has ever heard before! The world is full of possibilities, but how can we grasp these possibilities if it is locked behind the fence society found unbearable and inappropriate?

AP Language: Question 3 "Television"

Television

*http://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/political-puppets.jpg

     Maybe Darwin's Theory might end up happening after all: an evolutionary development of man, but the sudden destabilization and step back of improvement, into the return of becoming less than of man's expectations due to modernistic values. A futuristic, innovative technology such as the television has slowly retracted the purpose and definition of innovation due to the reluctance of the component becoming a weapon of mass destruction which relies on the death of individuality. While our screens became larger and wider, our brains have rotted and narrowed to minimal membranes which feeds on the influence of a talking box. Barbara Ehrenreich writes about the pessimistic view in the "garage" found on television in a passage from her writing, "The Worst Years of Our Lives" Let's first get in depth with what television is all about; is the television screen truly "dangerous"?

     Civilizations centuries before now would be in awe at the sigh of where man has taken technology, but is this step-forward in technology a step-back into mankind's evolutionary development? Ehrenreich states that "...you will never see people watching television (within the screen). This excerpt does not exactly portray a comparison to literal terms, but expands in the form of understanding how significant the TV affects people and the daily lives of these viewers. This is where the media industries feed on the lack of action and creativity humans have today and even back when the development of such devices were being processed, "Modern people, i.e, couch potatoes, do nothing that is even shown...(it is either dangerous or would involve getting off the couch)" The author is simply saying the reason why the world watches television or why it is so drawn to the lucid effects it has is due to the fact that it brings an entertainment beyond our reach, for example, skydiving, gun fights, etc. By using the television to become a significance in the American household, with the poison of fictional/ideologies in the actual screen, society becomes a unit enthralled by manipulation; it makes people feel as if they are being included in these events or create a sense of adventure without actually having it. Is Barbara Ehrenreich telling the truth? Let's analyze why and how.

     The author, as a woman antagonized by modernistic priorities, asks the audience "So why do you keep watching?" This dignifies the importance the audience has on her writing to be able to reach her message into your mind. The television is just as dangerous as the author portrays it to be. While is not in the sense of danger whereas the audience are physically harmed, but are mentally and subliminally harmed. TV has become a priority in which we believe can relieve stress and cause ecstasy, while it is truly an object built to manipulate and persuade viewers by having such closed, naive minds to be a benefactor to businesses and regurgitate the interests of a blinded humanity. The author's ideals seem to perceive truth because it is a difficult theory to obligate corruption in your society, but it must be done to open minds to knowledge which can perhaps challenge the works of the media puppeteers. Going back to her question, it remains a mystery how bizarre a set of people can be so easily altered mentally through the works of commercialism and capitalism through a society enriched with beneficiaries and wealth. The direction in which the essay turns to is a deeper meaning to how a person or a community of people can relatively open their eyes to see the media being native to themselves.

     We have gone through war and violence, witnessing bloodshed and corruption toward our country, but the television is a form of weaponry because it lives in our lives everyday either supporting the puppetry through feeding within these shells of control or fighting the media to prevent anymore illicit behavior found in swaying society as a whole. The television withholds a power over us' a sense of involvement and neediness that is sugar coated to look and feel harmless. The television is a world in which is portrayed in a fictional, adventurous way used to direct the audience to become a generation of slaves of their own materialism and fascism. The only true way of fighting the industries and understanding its setbacks requires us to listen to people like Ehrenreich to reveal disillusionment and crooked values of our culture because this trait of analyzation can be the reason our civilization ends in the hands of the enslavement of the people by the media, ot the fact we, as a society, can challenge and fight for our world to become honorable and dignified.