| Philosophy 101-01 | 9/21/2012 |

|

The definition of division causes a basis of argument in Plato’s “Euthyphro”. While awaiting trial, Euthyphro explains that he has brought his father in front of the Judge with a murder charge. The idea of bring one’s own father to court brings forth room for debate between Socrates and Euthyphro. The main question being what is the definition of piety? The main reason that Socrates asks this question is so that he can use the answer to defend himself, but while searching for the definition they find much controversy in Euthyphro’s action of bringing his father to court. It is clear that Socrates is looking for a universal definition of piety, in which all actions can be measure to determine whether or not they are pious. In order for the definition to be universal it must express what is essential about the thing being defined.
The word piety was defined several ways throughout the reading. At first Euthyphro explains that “piety is what he is doing now, that is prosecuting his father for manslaughter (Plato 5d ).” Socrates disagrees stating that it was not a definition but simply an example of piety and therefore does not provide a fundamental characteristic which makes a pious thing pious. Euthyphro then continues to explain in his second definition that “piety is what is pleasing to the gods (Plato 6e-7a).” Socrates consents to this definition because it is expressed in a general form, but then criticizes it on the grounds that the gods do not always agree with each other on what is pleasing. Socrates is basically saying that what is pleasing to one god may not be pleasing to another. Euthyphro argues that not even the gods would disagree that someone who kills without reasoning should but punished. They come to the conclusion that the same action could be both pious and impious, so Euthyphro’s definition does not work. He then tries to slightly amend his last thought and says that “What all gods love is pious, and what they all hate is impious (Plato 9e).” At this point Socrates introduces the “Euthyphro Dilemma” by asking “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or pious because it is loved by the gods (10a)?” Thus they decided that piety comes before the liking both temporally and logically, yet Euthyphro’s third definition is the exact opposite, therefore it is severely flawed. After three failures from Euthyphro, Socrates suggests a definition of piety namely that “piety is a species of the genus justice (Plato 12d).” He asks the questions of what makes piety different from all the actions that we call just. We cannot say that something is simply because we believe it to be so. Euthyphro proposes his final definition that “Piety is an art of sacrifice and prayer.” In the end their conversation completes a full circle with the final idea that “piety is intimately bound up with what the gods like (Plato 15a).”
The article on Jewish Mysticism explains that what varies between Jewish Mysticism and other religions is the interpretation of the experiences through the attempt to communicate it, and the ability to make others see the significance of the event (Jones Pg 156). Jewish Mysticism is a larger element of myth and folklore than Christian Mysticism. Gnostical movements had a lot of influence on Jewish Mysticism (Jones Pg 157). Kabbalism, the most important contribution to Jewish Mysticism, is a discipline and school of thought. It is the teachings that explain the relationships between an unchanging and eternal Ein Sof and the mortal universe or his universe. Kabbalism “set out to preserve god and to blaze a new and glorious trail to Him, but encountered mythology on its way and was tempted to lose itself in its labyrinth.” These thoughts came about by persons who had mystical experiences. There are several types of Jewish Mysticism. The first type being Merkabah Mysticism was aimed to contemplate the visions of God’s Throne, not of god himself. This idea stated that “God himself is too remote, too wholly Other, for them to expect to attain a mystical union with him (Jones Pg 158).” Another type of Jewish Mysticism is Hasidism what had two diverse periods one early and another in the twelfth century. This movement aimed for a complete serenity of mind and it tried to make religion a pure act of love. The movement stated that “God is even closer to the universe and to man than the soul is to the body ( Jones Pg 158).” Abraham Abulafia, a very important interpreter of Jewish Mysticism, developed a technique of meditation. He tried to “unseal and untie the knots which bind the soul from its true source (Jones Pg 159).” He aimed to break down the barriers to help man become aware of his intrinsic relationship with God. The Book of Splendor is another important part of Jewish mysticism in which it is explained that “a hidden God, and infinite and Absolute Being, unrevealable to finite minds that can know only by mean of qualities (Jones Pg 160).” Finally the article explains that “evil in the world is due to the fact that the fire of justice and wrath breaks away and is no longer tempered by the quality of grace and mercy in God (Jones Pg 160).”
Jewish Mysticism basically states that in order to have a world at all outside of God, one must withdraw into His own Being and concentrate as En Sof (Jones Pg 161).” We must also realize that the universe is a realm of Exile through the Divine Withdrawal, but it is the mission of the Jews everywhere, to gather up the Sparks of Light and prepare that way for the great Redemption and Restoration.
In comparison both articles talk about myth and folklore, more so in Euthyphro than mysticism. Both are trying to please the gods and obtain piety. In contrast mysticism seems to be more serene and bases on pure love. Through mysticisms one becomes a better person intrinsically by meditation and self-reflection; this causes enlightenment and pious. Euthyphro beings extrinsically and is more pious. The gods in Euthyphro seem to be more human like and not has divine as those in Jewish Mysticism. Before reading this article I thought of piety as religious devotion and reverence to God. In the reading it was brought to my attention that piety is also what is pleasing to the Gods. Such a broad definition leaves a lot of room for thought. Euthyphro caused me to think a lot about what would be pleasing to the Gods and what would be considered impiety. While continuing to read, my thoughts came to a standstill because in the end what is pleasing to one person may not be pleasing to another. This relates a lot to life, in which we are out to please our peers and our actions are constantly judged. We are liked by some and hated by others simply because our personality pleases one group of people but causes anger to another. This article caused me to reflect on life, it brought me to realization that not everyone is going to like me because what is pious to one person may be impious to another. The idea of Mysticism is slightly blurry to me. When I think of Mysticism I think of relaxation and different techniques to reach the point of relaxation such as yoga, or different breathing exercises. When it comes to relation these forms of relaxation to the Gods my thoughts are jumbled. After reading the article on Jewish Mysticism it seemed clear that when it comes to Religious Mysticism one is trying to find and pure and open state of mind about God and the universe. The article cleared the fog for me and allowed me to realize how religion benefits from open-mindedness. Work Cited * Jones, Rufus M. "Jewish Mysticism." Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1508343>.

* Plato. "The Internet Classics Archive | Euthyphro by Plato." The Internet Classics Archive | Euthyphro by Plato. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2012. <http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html>.