The Last Days of Socrates

The following is an excerpt from The Last Days of Socrates written by Plato himself. It is in dialogue form which makes it easier to understand, but it is not fiction, but an actual dialogue exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro. The two meet outside of the court both with legal business at hand, Socrates is accused with "corrupting the youth", and is found applauding his accusers argument as logical and reasonable. He then discovers that Euthyphro is accusing his own father before the Athenian court of murder. His parents call Euthyphro an "impious son" to which Socrates begs the question "what is it to be pious or impious?". Thus, he then challenges Euthyphro. Euthyphro replies by saying "Pious is what is loved by all the gods, and impious, what is hated by them. It is then that the following dialogue takes place.

Soc: There was a notion that came into my mind while you were speaking; I said to myself: "Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to me that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how do I know anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for granting that this action may be hateful to the gods, still piety and impiety are not adequately defined by these distinctions, for that which is hateful to the gods has been shown to be also pleasing and dear to them." And therefore, Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove this; I will suppose, if you like, that all the gods condemn and abominate such an action. But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of love and Let us say that what all the gods approve is pious and holy. others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?

Euthyphro: Why not, Socrates?

Soc: Why not! certainly, as far as I am concerned, Euthyphro, there is no reason why not. But whether this admission will greatly assist you in the task of instructing me as you promised, is a matter for you to consider.

Euth: Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.
Soc. Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What do you say?

Euth: We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand the test of enquiry.

Soc: We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

With his last statement Socrates challenges literally every foundation of Greek philosophy. He literally, openly challenges the god's own righteousness. In his statement he questions whether the gods value something because it is holy, or if something is holy because the gods value it. That question was nearly heresy. Therefore we can only say that what is loved by all the gods is in a state to be loved by them; but holiness has a wider meaning than this. In his argument Socrates, rather than challenge the ideas and concepts of Euthyphro in an attempt to persuade him from his opinion, he attacks the very core, the very base of what Euthyphro bases his philosophy on, in a way that cannot be refuted or proved but until proven wrong, is by far the more reasonable and logical truth. And so with that he has shaken the foundations of what then modern philosophy claimed. What then do we gather from this. When arguing intelligently, to attack one another's claims is such as trying to kill a weed without uprooting it. Socrates did not pull the leaves off the weed, but rather, grasped at its very roots.

Egypt: ROI Analysis

Who built the great pyramids and why? These colossal constructs cost half an empire’s resources and were built only as a tomb. Was it a waste? I will try to briefly reiterate the history of these massive pyramids and help you to make your mind whether or not they were a waste.


The first ever pyramid was constructed by King Djoser. It was called a step pyramid and though Djoser built it, the coordination of the large-scale technology is attributed to Imhotep. Imhotep was among the only recorded mortals to have been presented divine status after death due to his brilliant architectural mind. He served as the ‘Director of Works’ for both upper and lower Egypt. Some actually credit the invention of Papyrus to Imhotep as well. Not only was he credited with the Pyramid of Djoser built in Saqqara and papyrus, but also the invention of columns.
The step pyramid at Saqqara originally consisted of seven steps but eventually an eighth would be added. Different stages of construction are quite obvious, since the finish was supposed to be a coat of limestone, but then a second layer was added, and finally a third. It served as an underground burial chamber but it was unique since the chamber was square, whereas it was normally rectangular. The royal burial chamber is 28m below ground level with a vertical shaft leading to it, sealed by a three ton slap of granite. Later on a series of other shafts and one tomb was added. Some of these shafts were lined with blue tile. It is suggested that this tomb was built for a family member and not for Djoser himself.

Imhotep outlived Djoser but not by far. A couple hundred years after the death of Djoser and Imhotep other pharaohs tried to build pyramids. They failed miserably. But finally there came a little pharaoh named Snefru. Snefru was determined that he would replicate Imhotep’s pyramid and then improve it. His first pyramid was too steep and collapsed. His second also collapsed but over no short period of time. Finally he built a third pyramid, widening its base and curving the edges slightly so that it became known as the “Bent Pyramid”. However he was determined that he would make the perfect pyramid. He constructed yet another pyramid, this one being smoothed with limestone and also wide at the base. He had done it. The pyramid that little Snefru built now stands as one of the great pyramids of Egypt. It was the largest ever constructed... until his son was born. His son grew up and eventually designed and built the greatest pyramid there ever was and is.

To build a pyramid costs massive quantities of resources but to fail and build another one… and then three more! But Snefru never quit, and because of it he achieved his life’s goal and became a part of history. Whether the pyramids were a waste of resources or not is irrelevant. It is for one’s own self to decide. But where would we be without pyramids? These great constructions provide us with boundless information and mystery. They are the greatest piece of one of the greatest civilizations every to have graced the planet. Pyramids provided mystery and purpose for thousands of archeologists and by that are not a waste at all.

Iconoclast

This is cool. Basically an Iconoclast is someone who refuses to be bound by traditions, accept icons, and become victim of conformity. Someone who rebels against traditional beliefs and prefers to be a radical and a standout.

iconoclast [aɪˈkɒnəˌklæst]
n.
1. a person who attacks established or traditional concepts, principles, laws, etc.
2. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

image breaker
ruiner, uprooter, waster, destroyer, undoer

noun: rebel, radical, dissident, heretic
e.g.: He was an iconoclast who refused to be bound by tradition.

[from Late Latin iconoclastes, from Late Greek eikonoklastes, from eikōn icon + klastēs breaker]

iconoclastic adj.
iconoclastically adv.

Blogging

BLOGGING - "Never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few."

Hilarious and ironic.

Was Abraham Right to Attempt to Sacrifice His Son?

"Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1) How could God, the divine embodiment of love, Yahweh himself, tell Abraham who was a humble and righteous and God-fearing man to sacrifice his only child? Was Abraham right to obey what he THOUGHT he heard?

Abraham lived his life in righteousness and purity as a follower of God. And So God, offered this promise to Abraham:

"Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

So Abraham obeyed the LORD and went with his wife Sarah and his nephew Lot to find the land that God had promised him. During his travels Abraham had many adventures; rescuing Lot from a city about to be destroyed by God, a king took Sarah to be his wife, and he was blessed by a mighty prophet. But finally God came to Abraham in a vision and through this vision God established a covenant with Abraham:

The Abrahamic Covenant
To understand the Abrahamic Covenant one must first understand a covenant.
There are two types of covenants:
• The conditional covenant
• The unconditional covenant
The conditional covenant: Is a covenant/contract in which there must be two parties to participate. The covenant requires something from both parties and if at any time one party does not uphold their end of the covenant/contract it is rendered null and void and all requirements are canceled by both parties. There may also be consequences if either party does not uphold their end. A conditional covenant usually is to mutual benefit. Frankly, a conditional covenant is like saying, “You do this, and I’ll do that.”
The unconditional covenant: Is a covenant/contract that in which only one party is required to take part in. There are no consequences for failure on the part of the required party. However, in an unconditional covenant, the required party is to uphold his end at all costs regardless of what the other party does.


The Abrahamic was an unconditional covenant. The covenant was made up of three promises:
Promise 1: The promise of land; God called Abraham out the Ur of the Chaldees promising him land. This promise was expanded later Deuteronomy 30:1–10 which is known as the Palestinian covenant.
Promise 2: God promised Abraham countless descendants. Abraham was 75 years old and childless when this promise was made.
Promise 3: The Promise of blessings and redemption for Abraham and all his descendants.

It is quite obvious that God was with him and very much present in his life. So time went by and Abraham still had no children and so his wife, Sarah, came to him and told him that maybe God meant to fulfill his promise through another. So Sarah told Abraham to go and sleep with her servant, Hagar. Abraham bore a child through Hagar but when Hagar realized she was pregnant she begun treating Sarah with great prejudice for her disability to bear children. So Sarah banished Hagar and her child.
Now the LORD allowed Sarah to conceive and she bore Abraham a son, whom they named Isaac. When Isaac had grown into a young man, God appeared to Abraham and told him to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering. Abraham was utterly devastated. But his loyalty and obedience to God was even greater than his love for his own family. He did as he was told and brought Isaac to the mountain the Lord chose and there he bound Isaac and lay him on the altar. He drew his knife, but an angel of the Lord stopped him from killing his son and so Isaac was spared. But was he right to attempt to sacrifice his own son? He had seen God in a dream. Yet it was a dream with no substantial proof of being indeed real? What if Abraham had indeed killed Isaac, only to find that there was no God, or maybe that it had not really been God who appeared to him, or that he had misunderstood? But there is a God, A great and loving, a terrible and awesome God, who did speak to Abraham.

The consequences if he had killed his son and it had not been a divine command would have been grave at the least. He would have lost his only son and for no gain or reason.
The consequences if he had NOT killed his son and it were a divine command would have been graver. He would have angered God himself. The consequences needn’t be listed.
The consequences if he had killed his son and it had been a divine command would have also nearly destroyed him. He would have obeyed the Lord and no doubt been rewarded, but he would have drove a knife into his own son’s heart and then sacrificed him on an altar to a God that claimed to love him.
If God’s promise truly had been unconditional, there would not have been any consequences to refusing to sacrifice his son. But out of the sheerest faith, Abraham did the one thing that horrified him more than any other thing God could have told him to do. But the reward was great and Abraham lost nothing because he trusted the LORD. When we are told to be willing to give up anything and everything for God, it means literally.
Abraham trusted God’s ability to lead, more than his ability to follow.
Yes indeed, he was right.

The Destruction of Sennacherib

HE Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts that once heaved, forever grew still!

And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide,
But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride;
And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf,
And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.

And there lay the rider distorted and pale,
With the dew on his brow, and the rust on his mail:
And the tents were all silent, the banners alone,
The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown.

And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!

- Lord Byron

Could I be like you?

O, child, with harp and string
With your voice you soothed a distraught king
A giant you slew, with naught but your sling
Peace for nations you did bring

O heart so pure, destined to be
Father of a Messiah, yourself a king
Mercy you showed, to your sworn enemy
Could I be like you, a child like me?

Where did you find, within yourself
The audacity to become,
A king but yet a servant
To the King of the Kingdom come

"Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands"
But in your hearth so pure, you could not begin to fathom
The jealousy that gnawed at the pride of your enemy
Who professed to be your friend but only sought to kill thee

Son of a shepherd, blood of a king
Heart of a lion, with your voice you did sing
To the glory of God, and glory did you bring
When you danced like a fool for the King of kings
Could I be like you, a child like me?

~ Q

Jack London Surfing

Jack London the esteemed fiction writer, I have recently discovered, was an avid surfer as well as woodsman and outdoors-man. In fact, he discovered such an instantaneous love for the sport that he wrote a little known and little read, but magnificently written piece called "Surfing, a Royal Sport". The following is an excerpt from his essay:

And suddenly, out there where a big smoker lifts skyward, rising like a
sea-god from out of the welter of spume and churning white, on the giddy,
toppling, overhanging and downfalling, precarious crest appears the dark
head of a man. Swiftly he rises through the rushing white. His black
shoulders, his chest, his loins, his limbs -- all is abruptly projected on
one's vision. Where but the moment before was only the wide desolation and
invincible roar, is now a man, erect, full-statured, not struggling
frantically in that wild movement, not buried and crushed and buffeted by
those mighty monsters, but standing above them all, calm and superb, poised
on the giddy summit, his feet buried in the churning foam, the salt smoke
rising to his knees, and all the rest of him in the free air and flashing
sunlight, and he is flying through the air, flying forward, flying fast as
the surge on which he stands. He is a Mercury -- a brown Mercury. His heels
are winged, and in them is the swiftness of the sea. In truth, from out of
the sea he has leaped upon the back of the sea, and he is riding the sea
that roars and bellows and cannot shake him from its back. But no frantic
outreaching and balancing is his. He is impassive, motionless as a statue
carved suddenly by some miracle out of the sea's depth from which he rose.
And straight on toward shore he flies on his
winged heels and the white crest of the breaker. There is a wild burst of
foam, a long tumultuous rushing sound as the breaker falls futile and spent
on the beach at your feet; and there, at your feet steps calmly ashore a
Kanaka, burnt golden and brown by the tropic sun. Several minutes ago he was
a speck a quarter of a mile away. He has ``bitted the bull-mouthed breaker''
and ridden it in, and the pride in the feat shows in the carriage of his
magnificent body as he glances for a moment carelessly at you who sit in the
shade of the shore. He is a Kanaka -- and more, he is a human being, a
member of the kingly species that has mastered matter and the brutes and
lorded it over creation.