"One Smart Black Boy!"

“One Smart Black Boy!”

It is just completely clear, at this point, that Jigga Jay-Z is the “greatest rapper of all time” simply because he’s the “greatest thinking rapper of all time”! Question: How do you get 5 million dollars for selling only a million records before actually selling them?  Answer: You think like Hova! According to MSN Entertainment, the “all-time heavyweight champion of flow-ers”, via Samsung’s Galaxy smartphone, is giving away 1 million copies of his latest “Magna Carta Holy Grail” album.  The news source indicated that the phone company paid Mr. Carter $5 for each copy of the album, which will be available to Samsung Galaxy users when they download a hosting application on the device. Either this guy’s impeccably smart or he has an all-star team, although…only a truly smart person is able to precisely assemble an appropriate crew that can adequately assist him along his aspirational journey…so it’s both!

It Is What It Is

 It Is What It Is

Plato’s “Euthyphro”, in its very intriguing philosophical content, compellingly displays Socratic dialect in a way that is most influential to the inquisitive scholar.  This literary piece is centered on the question and answer form of reasoning between Socrates and his acquaintance, Euthyphro.  The two gentlemen cordially discuss and investigate the concept of piety and its essential meaning in regards to the Gods and overall morality.  This essay, however, is a mere attempt to analyze the dialogue and examine the meaning of piety, beginning by briefly discussing the ultimate goal of Socrates, which is noticed in the dialogue between him and Euthyphro.  The significance of the concept of piety as it pertains to the men’s conversation will be highlighted here as well, along with a brief examination of the term’s definitions which are also expressed by Euthyphro during the gentlemen’s conversation.  Finally, a brief expansion on the terms’ actual definition will also be included in this essay.  It will ultimately be shown here that even though piety can be dissected using the type of reasoning that Socrates applied, the term can yet, simply be defined to be what we—people—have defined it to be.   

 It is completely clear that Socrates had one explicit, fundamental goal throughout the entire dialogue, and that was to grasp the full understanding of the meaning of piety.  Moreover, because Socrates was set to stand trial for the offense of impiety, the opposite of piety, he sought to acquire a completely sound understanding of the meaning of piety, and use it as his defense against the prosecution (Meletus) in the court:  “I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment.  I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life” (Euthyphro, Plato)…his plan was crafty, to say the least.  Socrates represented a type of person that we might generally call agnostic.  His counterpart, Euthyphro, represented not only what we would call a faithful believer, but he represented someone that was considered to be adept or well-versed regarding matters of the Gods and morality, and ultimately a man of integrity.  Knowing this, Socrates figured he would simply take advantage of the opportunity to become aware of the nature of piety from a rather renowned and credible source, readily available to him.  Thus, he proceeded to do just that, allowing “piety” to live between the both of them, prominently, for what seemed like an intense moment of time.

This very mentally stimulating dialogue consists of Euthyphro attempting to define piety for Socrates.  However, it is interesting to note that none of Euthyphro’s responses to Socrates’ “What is piety?” was sufficient enough, as Socrates was able to offer logically valid arguments that clearly refuted them all.  Initially, Euthyphro asserted that “Piety is doing as I am doing…” (Plato) referring to his act of prosecuting his own father for murder.  Socrates skillfully refuted Euthyphro’s assertion by reminding him of the nature of the question and simply making him aware of his neglect to provide a precise answer to the question.  Euthyphro’s second attempt at defining the term for Socrates was to provide the difference between piety and impiety: “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them” (Plato).  Socrates is relatively pleased with this answer, but yet swiftly finds an angle to successfully challenge the notion.  Socrates was able to show how certain acts, particularly, Euthyphro’s prosecution of his father, could be deemed as simultaneously pious and impious, by revealing how the act would generate enmity among the gods—and also, once again, making Euthyphro aware of his neglect to precisely answer the question.  As a final definition for piety put forth by Euthyphro to include here, it should be noted that in acknowledging “justice” as merely a  “more extended notion of which piety is only a part” (Plato), Socrates requests that his counterpart “tell [him] what part of justice is piety or holiness, that [he might] be able to tell Meletus not to do [him] injustice, or indict [him] for impiety, as [he is] now adequately instructed by [Euthyphro] in the nature of piety or holiness, and their opposites” (Plato).  Euthyphro kindly responded, this time in much more of a timid manner saying that “Piety or holiness, […], appears to [him] to be that part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men” (Plato).  Again, Socrates is dissatisfied, expressing his desire and need for more information on the subject.  This extremely intricate dialogue goes on a little further, only to end with the famous Socrates still separated from the ultimate truth that he sought.

To provide a scholarly definition to the word piety, according to dictionary.reference.com, it would have to be noted as “reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations” (2013). Although the website did provided three other definitive variations, when considering the nature of the subject presented here, as well as in Plato’s Euthyphro, this particular definition is the one most relevant—and if I must speak from my personal perspective, I would have to say that the website’s definition is sufficient for me.  This definition is the one also, I believe, would have been appropriate in the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates.  The reason for this belief is simply because it is not clear to me how anyone, including Socrates (although it is very difficult to assert this statement here without feeling a sense of timidity) could find an angle to challenge it and successfully refute the notion.  The website’s definition, as I understand it, provides a direct, head-on description of what piety is, which is exactly what Socrates was seeking from Euthyphro in their dialogue.

People took religious very seriously back in the day of Socrates, even to the extent of it being sort of the next best thing to a governing body’s law.  It seems safe to say that, in a sense, people were almost expected to carry out certain aspects of religion regardless of their personal opinion.  Euthyphro, according to Plato’s literary illustration, was the human definition of piety, yet could not intellectually define what it essentially was.  Additionally, Socrates, exercising his great ability to intellectually mine for ultimate truth, did exactly that, continuously validly making Euthyphro aware of his inability to actually define the term.  However, it should be duly noted that regardless of how Socrates exceedingly exhausted the subject using his reasoning, men have yet, collectively agreed that there is a precise and formal definition for the term and it has been established.  Furthermore, with great respect to Socrates and his reasoning, the famous philosopher was only one man, and as everyone knows…majority rules, and Socrates’ reasoning, in regards to piety’s meaning, has not been established as being valid enough to reject the terms dictionary definition.  Thus, the term can simply be defined as we have defined it to be.                

                    

 References

Plato (427? BCE-347? BCE),  Euthyphro trans., Jowett, Benjamin, retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1642, June 9, 2013

Dictionary.reference.com (2013)

A Glance at Morality

A Glance at Morality

Peter Singer’s 1972 article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, was a rather compelling literary piece that analyzed and, in a sense, provided a summation of society’s moral psyche.  Presenting a brief critique of the response of the world’s affluent nations in regards to the tragic existence of poverty in the “northeastern region of the Indian Subcontinent” (ask.com, 2013)—then known as Bengal—his agenda was simply to express and defend his personal position, with hopes that people would be convinced of the necessity to change what was considered to be society’s normal moral mentality.  As a “principle”, Singer asserted that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, 1972).  This principle is seemingly explained as something he believed should not logically be refuted, assuming the principle to be “uncontroversial” (Singer, 1972). 


In addition, the author elaborately presented an acute explanation of the principle, magnifying the possible effects, if the principle were appropriately applied.  According to Singer, if acted upon, “even in its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed” (Singer, 1972).  For example, in applying the principle one would not consider typical factors such as proximity and distance.  Refusing to consider such factors make a person more likely to help someone physically closer, but not unwilling to offer assistance to someone across the globe, eliminating the possibility of justifying discrimination on the grounds of geography (Singer, 1972).  He continued, highlighting a more pessimistic perspective that measured one’s humane responsibility or duty.  Using an illustration of seeing a child drowning in a pond, Singer questioned the level of responsibility one really has to save that child, when also noticing others that are “no further away” (Singer, 1972) and are very much aware of the situation, yet still having neglected to assist the child.  He concluded this assessment by asserting the point that the perspective which considers an excess of people available to help as a means to lessen the obligation, responsibility, or duty of the primary individual is, in fact, “absurd”, labeling it as “an ideal excuse for inactivity” (Singer, 1972).

In the article, Peter Singer also presented his concept of marginal utility, in which he predominantly equated the concept with his overall position on the subject.  It is clear that the author’s overall position is that of the aforementioned principle.  However, it is understood that his ultimate position on the subject is built on this fundamental idea: to “prevent bad things from happening unless in doing so we would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, [would] require reducing ourselves to the level of marginal utility” (Singer, 1972).  He particularly defines marginal utility to be almost a menial level of existence that occurs as a result of one giving to relieve others in need.  It is presented in the article (via excerpt authored by Thomas Aquinas) that, as a person possessing an excess of resources, you are, in a sense, indebted to the person living in poverty.  Thus, establishing the offering of the portion of resources one does not need, as one’s duty.

Transitionally, while providing a thorough account of his primary position, the author expanded on the subject, shining a little light on its yang perspective.  Singer argued that the change of society’s moral mentality or “moral conceptual scheme”, expressed in his position, is “too drastic” of a change.  He explained that because people normally do not consider living luxuriously and not donating to the poor, as morally incorrect as they would consider the immoral act of killing someone, altering society’s mentality in regards to his position would be a bit too much to implement.  Another counter-argument the author made, addressed whether “giving away a great deal of money” is the most effective way to “prevent (something bad from happening) starvation” (Singer, 1972).  The author did explicitly assert his opinion that donating privately would not be enough, and that constructing new ways to contribute finances publicly as well as privately would be necessary.  Interestingly, another way Singer challenged his position was by presenting the idea of rising population rates, and the earth’s ability to support the multitudes.  He introduced the possible problem, if appropriately considered, that this would present for individuals in favor of “preventing (something bad from happening) famine” (Singer, 1972).  This argument was surprisingly concluded with the ironic yet unique strategy of supporting organizations that concentrate on population control, rather than contributing to conventional methods of “preventing (something bad from happening) famine” (Singer, 1972).

In considering Peter Singer’s take on society’s moral mentality, it must be noted that his perspective on the subject was nothing less than radical then, just as it would be now.  In regards to one of his counter-arguments, he was completely on target with the assumption that because of the way society actually perceives morality, the difficulty of implementing his particular paradigm would be at an enormous level.  Aside from that, Singer’s primary position is, undoubtedly, provocative, in that, essentially, there should be no nation, community, family, or individual that should have to suffer from anything—especially something as mediocre as famine—simply because an equation of unconditional love, peace and harmony generates enough resources to support everyone on the planet.  Additionally, no one particular nation, community, family, or individual should feel obligated to fork out any of their personal resources to assist in any matter that is not their own, however, all of these entities, when necessary, should feel obligated to empathize and imagine themselves in the needy situation, causing a willingness to develop a practical and meaningful strategy to assist and contribute effectively.  Furthermore, the subject of moral responsibility is one that, most certainly, should not be disregarded, and is also a subject that should not generate a great deal of conflict.  Regardless of race, color, or creed, we are all a member of an intelligent human family that should always consider the hardships of others, and be enthusiastically willing to assist anyone in need when we are able—and that’s morality!

 

References

Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Spring, 1972), pp. 229-243 Published by: Wiley, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052

I Don't Really Know, but I Do Know...

I Don't Really Know, but I Do Know...

Politics--so complicated, yet so simple...so much I don't understand, yet there's so much that seems crystal clear.  I want so badly to open up my computer and peck away at my keyboard, expressing my innermost thoughts and opinions about everything I can comprehend that's happening on Capitol Hill, but I'm really afraid that people will think that I think I actually know what I'm talking about.  I really do not want people to have that perception at all, being that I have no clue what's really going on!  However, I am in dire need to express what I was able to observe while watching a congressional hearing (this is probably not exactly what this particular event might be formally called) on C-Span on June 5, 2013.

Now again, I am totally oblivious to what's really going on politically, but I suppose I haphazardly pay attention to political broadcasts on television, and in doing so, even in the way that I do, some of the pieces begin to come together in a way that makes me tremendously grateful to be a television owner.  As I can understand, in Congressional hearings, a subject or particular order of business is introduced to the representatives in the House, and then with a much more eloquently implemented protocol than I am able to describe here, the representatives have an opportunity to verbally express whatever it is that they and their staff's have put together in regards to the subject or order of business that has been introduced.  On June 5, 2013, while observing a particular hearing, I felt like a huge part of our country's problem was revealed to me in the form of people like Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia's 11th district. 

Yes, as a member of the Republican party, this guy, as it seems nowadays, has been mechanically wired and programmed to "throw rocks at the throne" every chance he gets.  And yes this is apart of a narrative that has carried on since the beginning of Big O's first term.  However, let this be known as an ETURNAL EXPRESSION: JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOB! 

I totally understand the concept of "checks and balances" between the three branches of government, but to quote one of ESPN's most popular phrases...Come On Man!  This is one of the House's routine sessions, and all you're required to do is simply pay attention to what's going on, and when you have the opportunity, present what you have to contribute to whatever subject is introduced by the dude in the front of the room.  But no...not Phil Gingrey.  Phil Gingrey can't simply present what he has and sit his ass down.  Phil Gingrey has to go out of his way to try to knock points off of the Administration.  What the hell, really, does this weird looking asshole think he's getting out of doing that?  He's obviously not a good polititian, because a good polititian would consider his political future and find ways to get the President's attention and share with him his perspective of the issue since he thinks it's something the Administration is neglecting to consider or even implement.  But...as I have mentioned...I have no clue what's really going on politically!  So...

All I do know is that the country would be substantially more productive if people like Phil Gingrey would JUST DO THEIR DAMN JOB!

P.E.A.C.E.