maybe tearing families apart or turning marriage and reproduction into a government affair.

Not having parents or a community will surely have adverse effects on the child's upbringing.

Interesting how they are standardizing marriage in this way, it has nothing to d with attraction but purely the continuation of "superior" humans

This is an interesting idea. They were so focused on glorifying in their stories yet that is not what you want in a good leader.

So do Gods decide what is good and what is not? They can be swayed by humans so maybe a human decides what is good or not.

This is an interesting thought to me. Does it matter if you are the only one who knows you are just but society thinks you are unjust?

Is this saying he will return us to the weird creatures we were before Zeus cut us in two?

Reference to the age of Achilles or that beards make people more attractive?

I think I disagree with this. I think people are brave for other reasons, like love or friendship or many other things. But when I think about it, I wonder if everything boils down to fear. Are people brave because they fear repercussions for people they love?

How do you know what is a sign and what is just coincidence? What of the court ruling is the will of the Gods?

Wasn't he an Atheist?

I feel like it is teachable and it it knowledge, just not in the way they explain in here. You can teach someone something without having a formal teacher. you can teach through experience and stories.

Who decides who is a good man or not?

This goes back to the idea of the forms, knowledge cannot be taught but things considered to be knowledge can be taught.

Same

Again the idea of not being able to identify what virtue actually is, only examples of it.

so is this saying that what is "good" is decided by popular opinion?

first thing that kinda resembles the forms to me. Virtue is something that cannot be talked about, only examples of virtue are here in the physical world.

If he is that satisfied with the city, how could he not be satisfied with their legal ruling. He must do whatever the courts say because he has believed in Athens his entire life. He is happy enough, that he follows the legal procedures and stays when they come up with a verdict. If he fled then he would seem like a coward. He would be turning his back on the only place he has known.

the god instead of 'The gods'

His friend is about to die and he is worried about the shame it may bring on himself.

Crito keeps making this decision and situation a "we" thing. Crito is not the one that has to deal with death, yet he keeps on making it sound like he is deeply involved in this.

If Socrates took money to live from strangers I feel like he would forever belong to these strangers. I think that this is a worse fate than being exiled.

I do not really agree with this statement. I think it is one thing for a father to swallow all his children and commit other atrocities and quite another for someone to tie up a murderer. I guess that for Euthyphro context does not matter and the simple decision of whether or not something is just makes the difference.

There is an interesting sense of morality behind this. The context does not matter but only the idea of right and wrong. Was this man treated fairly regardless of his crime? This also may call into question our current death penalty system. Is it truly okay to murder a murderer under the disguise of law and order??

man made things make life more stressful and complex. Social pressures make life much harder than it needs to be, and in order to live a happy life they need to not focus on the physical needs of human life.

This reminds me of Descartes a little. We don't know what is true and what is not for sure. When two people look at the same table, they may see different light patterns and who is to say who is actually right.

This seems similar to the guy who said fire is everything in the way that they refer to fire as its own compound.

How does more void make something harder?

How does more void make something harder?

I feel like this is different from the sound argument. With sound everything may make a noise but we may not have good enough hearing to hear the sound. With the ship, one person may not be strong enough to overcome the friction to start the ship moving, but once it is in motion the one man may be able to move it. I feel like the factors acting on these two forces are just two different to compare the two.

I am lost.

When I read this literally, it does not make logical sense to me. If person A is faster than person B, eventually person A will catch person B, regardless of starting point. I feel like I am missing something but I do not know what yet.

This reminds me of the Bhagavad Gita. Especially the part about a young man meeting a god in a chariot. Not sure if there are any actual similarities yet.

I am curious as to what the rationale is behind this one.

I have no idea what is going on in this one, but for some reason I like it.

This is semi correct, which is interesting to me. The vast majority of rain comes from the ocean which then travels to lakes, rivers, and streams. I think it is interesting they talk about this in the Iliad.

The current gods are as bad as people, so why worship them at all? If they do things that a human would get shamed for, why are the gods not shamed?

Is this where the idea of duality grows from? Many western philosophers think in the context of pairs and not a free flow like some eastern philosophers. That may not make sense but in my head I think I know what I mean.

I am curious to know what the rationale is behind this.

Is this Pythagoras saying that he remembers all his past lives? If so, do people blindly believe him?

I feel like this is very similar to the struggle we discussed the other day about the old and new ways of thinking. The first group represents the old way in that they are not concerned with how or why things work, they just do what they are told. The second group representing the new way, thinking about the how and why of the world.