Post by Chicole Snell on Apr 28, 2015 6:03:57 GMT
1. Why was Socrates sentenced to death?:
It was Socrates initial understanding that he was sentenced, by Melitus, to death, by poison, for misleading the youth by creating god and renouncing the existence of other gods. He said to make have acted wickedly and made “….the worse appear the better cause.” Socrates believes he has been accused of such a crime because, as he states, “I have a benevolent habit of pouring out myself to everybody…” Which is to say, he is so outspoken about his opinions and philosophies. He became susceptible to accusations of sharing new ideas that are harming the youths perspective on religion. Socrates was called an atheist, essentially. Ironically, he was likened to a demon in his attacks against the gods, he supposedly did not believe in.
Additionally, he states, at the time of trial, there had been several artists, poets and rhetoricticians, whom had spoken out against and resented Socrates for exposing them to their ignorance. These individuals thought that they were wiser than they were because they were talented or wise in one domain. Socrates perspective is that human wisdom is useless, not that his wisdom was superior and anyone who does not acknowledge this is ignorant. Due to their arrogance and influence, they sentenced Socrates to death.
At his trial Socrates proved that it was impossible for him to speak against the gods and act as a demon, if he did not believe in the gods. Additionally, he highlighted that the youths under his influence had made him look bad by pontificating his teachings out of context and without complete understanding. After proving that it was unlikely he committed the acts brought against him, Socrates offered his life as a fine. He concluded that he could not live without speaking the truth and the truth would always offend, so it was better that he accept his punishment of death because that was the punishment to which he was sentenced.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
:
There is a conflict for some between science and mysticism because of how one chooses to measure their subjectivity. If one chooses to put more attention towards science, then their knowledge is shaped by what science uses to measure existence. If one puts more attention, or faith, into mysticism then they will view existence through the teachings of mysticism. Ironically, both mystic subjectivists and scientific subjectivists are seduced by what they do not know. They are often limit their understanding by being to confident in the notion that they can find absolute certainty. Like Socrates, Baba Faqir Chand and Sir Arthur Eddington admitted, we do not know all and we cannot find wisdom until we acknowledge that fact.
Moreover, mysticism puts much emphasis on spirituality and treats “worldly” matters as sinful or unimportant. Thus, limiting mystics ability to appreciate the realm in which spirituality exist. Spirituality exists and operates and exists within nature. What is mystical is not separate from matter. They are one in the same. Similar to the conundrum that Socrates presented to Euthyphro when he asked him to explain how on can no differentiate what part of justice is piety. How can we separate science and mysticism when both operate within our physical world, which includes what we cannot see or feel? Similarly, scientists, or non-mystics, discredit the possibility of mysticism because we can not observe it or measure it, yet, a great part of quantum theory is an immeasurable mystery. The conflict between science and religion lies in where one places their wonder and reverence and what language they use to entertain that which is unknown.
It was Socrates initial understanding that he was sentenced, by Melitus, to death, by poison, for misleading the youth by creating god and renouncing the existence of other gods. He said to make have acted wickedly and made “….the worse appear the better cause.” Socrates believes he has been accused of such a crime because, as he states, “I have a benevolent habit of pouring out myself to everybody…” Which is to say, he is so outspoken about his opinions and philosophies. He became susceptible to accusations of sharing new ideas that are harming the youths perspective on religion. Socrates was called an atheist, essentially. Ironically, he was likened to a demon in his attacks against the gods, he supposedly did not believe in.
Additionally, he states, at the time of trial, there had been several artists, poets and rhetoricticians, whom had spoken out against and resented Socrates for exposing them to their ignorance. These individuals thought that they were wiser than they were because they were talented or wise in one domain. Socrates perspective is that human wisdom is useless, not that his wisdom was superior and anyone who does not acknowledge this is ignorant. Due to their arrogance and influence, they sentenced Socrates to death.
At his trial Socrates proved that it was impossible for him to speak against the gods and act as a demon, if he did not believe in the gods. Additionally, he highlighted that the youths under his influence had made him look bad by pontificating his teachings out of context and without complete understanding. After proving that it was unlikely he committed the acts brought against him, Socrates offered his life as a fine. He concluded that he could not live without speaking the truth and the truth would always offend, so it was better that he accept his punishment of death because that was the punishment to which he was sentenced.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
:
There is a conflict for some between science and mysticism because of how one chooses to measure their subjectivity. If one chooses to put more attention towards science, then their knowledge is shaped by what science uses to measure existence. If one puts more attention, or faith, into mysticism then they will view existence through the teachings of mysticism. Ironically, both mystic subjectivists and scientific subjectivists are seduced by what they do not know. They are often limit their understanding by being to confident in the notion that they can find absolute certainty. Like Socrates, Baba Faqir Chand and Sir Arthur Eddington admitted, we do not know all and we cannot find wisdom until we acknowledge that fact.
Moreover, mysticism puts much emphasis on spirituality and treats “worldly” matters as sinful or unimportant. Thus, limiting mystics ability to appreciate the realm in which spirituality exist. Spirituality exists and operates and exists within nature. What is mystical is not separate from matter. They are one in the same. Similar to the conundrum that Socrates presented to Euthyphro when he asked him to explain how on can no differentiate what part of justice is piety. How can we separate science and mysticism when both operate within our physical world, which includes what we cannot see or feel? Similarly, scientists, or non-mystics, discredit the possibility of mysticism because we can not observe it or measure it, yet, a great part of quantum theory is an immeasurable mystery. The conflict between science and religion lies in where one places their wonder and reverence and what language they use to entertain that which is unknown.