Post by johnpenilla on May 1, 2015 17:50:17 GMT
1.Why was Socrates sentenced to death?
Socrates was brought to court by an individual named Melitus and is ultimately sentenced to death under the charge of corrupting the youth. More specifically, he is believed to have corrupted the youth with impiety, for he is said “to invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones,” along with “making the worse appear the better” (page 14 and 31). This accusation arose after Socrates ventured to find individuals who were wiser than he because the oracle at Delphi had stated that he was in fact the wisest. While searching, Socrates questions a politician, a poet (Melitus), an artesian (Anytus), and a rhetorician (Lycon); consequently, the latter individuals brought him to court. But he was convinced that they were not wise because they believed themselves to be so. In turn, Socrates explains, the youth with wealth and leisure have parroted him, questioning individuals in the same manner, but they are in fact not acting in the manner of a true philosopher. Socrates can justify his claim to his inquires because he concludes that the oracle has used him symbolically to display his belief “human wisdom is worth little or nothing,” as it is the gods who are in fact truly wise, and he is acting on behalf of the gods to display this to others, ultimately resulting with the misappropriation of his accusation.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
The conflict between science and religion arises for some individuals through the need to express themselves in ways that they believe are outside the distinction of the body (or mind). Plainly said, individuals cannot cope with the limits of their “three pounds of glorious meat” (page 3). The conflict, however, can be reduced to one that is vernacular, as the struggle has created a lexicon that is replete with concepts that have misled individuals including, soul, love, desire, etc; as a result, these notions have been instigating the confusion between religion and science. To better understand how the confusion is developing between science and religion, one must first separate both to grasp the limitations of each: science has complete domain over the natural world, which is everything in Ken Wilber’s notion of pre- rational, while religion is relegated to what he calls the trans- rational. An example of the distinctive space in between the two is seen as the limitations of science and religion stand side- by- side with Heisenberg’s principal of uncertainty and the Chandian Effect. There are many solutions to this conflict. The first is that if religion or mysticism is wholly dependent on what is transcending then it should operate “alone and forget convincing us” (page 29). Another solution would be unpinning the use of misleading terms, and to substitute them with terms that point to our “new found understanding of our body and the universe at large” (page 21). Lastly, individuals could take a greater interest in the inherent mysterious and beautiful qualities of matter. As Mysterium Termendum (2010) paraphrases the late physicist Richard Feynman, he explains having an understanding of the molecular composition of a flower allows him to appreciate it in many different ways.
Socrates was brought to court by an individual named Melitus and is ultimately sentenced to death under the charge of corrupting the youth. More specifically, he is believed to have corrupted the youth with impiety, for he is said “to invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones,” along with “making the worse appear the better” (page 14 and 31). This accusation arose after Socrates ventured to find individuals who were wiser than he because the oracle at Delphi had stated that he was in fact the wisest. While searching, Socrates questions a politician, a poet (Melitus), an artesian (Anytus), and a rhetorician (Lycon); consequently, the latter individuals brought him to court. But he was convinced that they were not wise because they believed themselves to be so. In turn, Socrates explains, the youth with wealth and leisure have parroted him, questioning individuals in the same manner, but they are in fact not acting in the manner of a true philosopher. Socrates can justify his claim to his inquires because he concludes that the oracle has used him symbolically to display his belief “human wisdom is worth little or nothing,” as it is the gods who are in fact truly wise, and he is acting on behalf of the gods to display this to others, ultimately resulting with the misappropriation of his accusation.
2. Why is there a conflict (for some) between science and religion?
The conflict between science and religion arises for some individuals through the need to express themselves in ways that they believe are outside the distinction of the body (or mind). Plainly said, individuals cannot cope with the limits of their “three pounds of glorious meat” (page 3). The conflict, however, can be reduced to one that is vernacular, as the struggle has created a lexicon that is replete with concepts that have misled individuals including, soul, love, desire, etc; as a result, these notions have been instigating the confusion between religion and science. To better understand how the confusion is developing between science and religion, one must first separate both to grasp the limitations of each: science has complete domain over the natural world, which is everything in Ken Wilber’s notion of pre- rational, while religion is relegated to what he calls the trans- rational. An example of the distinctive space in between the two is seen as the limitations of science and religion stand side- by- side with Heisenberg’s principal of uncertainty and the Chandian Effect. There are many solutions to this conflict. The first is that if religion or mysticism is wholly dependent on what is transcending then it should operate “alone and forget convincing us” (page 29). Another solution would be unpinning the use of misleading terms, and to substitute them with terms that point to our “new found understanding of our body and the universe at large” (page 21). Lastly, individuals could take a greater interest in the inherent mysterious and beautiful qualities of matter. As Mysterium Termendum (2010) paraphrases the late physicist Richard Feynman, he explains having an understanding of the molecular composition of a flower allows him to appreciate it in many different ways.