Socrates would have responded to Kierkegaard's claims that; the most important truth is radically individualistic and subjective, that rational conversation leads nowhere, that faith is the only solution to the problem of happiness, and that faith transcends and even nullifies morality, calling into question what people understand the characteristics of Kierkegaard's philosophy. He understands that many questions will not have answers, but will eventually lead the person to examine their life through a self-exploration of truth. Additionally, it would review some factors that make up happiness, such as love and justice, which are part of faith. He would surely also agree with the idea that faith is independent of morality. Socrates goes beyond saying that important truth is more than a fundamentally self-contained experience, he would say that "universal truth" is the true knowledge of the truth of others. Having their lives examined to find out how they should live it. Yet, in order to achieve authentic knowledge, Socrates questions whether knowledge of the gods or God precedes knowledge of piety or whether it is influenced by human understanding. When trying to find out what the key concepts are; faith, piety, good and evil mean, and whatever their universal definitions, it would be forced to deal with human rationality. In his statement that men are like gods because they too argue about the right, the noble, and the wrong, Socrates asks why are these virtues discussed, to begin with? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Understanding what makes something right or wrong will require addressing morality and its role in understanding truth. The way Socrates explains is that morality is relative to each person. There is no universal agreement on what morality is, as each person has their own interpretation based on their culture and religion. Socrates lived at a time when several Greek deities were worshipped. So when morality is fought or debated, we are actually fighting over who is most “loved” by the gods or who is most pleasing to the gods. In a sense, those who discuss morality are saying that they have had divine revelations and that they know the gods. So Socrates would then ask how do they know what pleases the gods and what love is? Knowing such a thing means that people have understood that everything is based on the preferences and/or moods of the gods. Obviously, they would put gods and humans on the same plane, as both can change their whims quite quickly and argue over specific meaning. Human nature does not allow someone to think that they are good or to believe that they are right, it is either that they are morally good or that they are morally right because thinking rationally one is better than the other. To be good, a person can behave in a matter. which provides a benefit to people other than oneself. Even then, the person is not truly good because of their intention; was the individual trying to be rewarded in some way? Does the texture of the universe, where you give something, give something of equal or greater value? If individuals are satisfied and like the solution, this will not be a problem because it does not depend on anything. For example, when one is useful, the person is diligent. If one contributes the most, he sacrifices the most. If someone gives without expecting something in return, he is callednoble. Some, to be considered worthy, would say that they will be seen by another and rewarded by that other. On the other hand, when something bad happens, people say, "I don't deserve this." So, what happens when intentions are malicious by action or context? Socrates makes sure that Euthyphro understands that those who have done "good" to later receive a blessing are only trading with God (also known as God). Socratic thought forces the question; who knows if you will get anything after the sacrifice? This question establishes that "no one deserves anything", even those who have lost everything are still considered fools. Therefore, Socrates would respond that if there are no rights, the gods lose their importance. Even more so, once an individual discovers righteousness, it does not matter whether God is real or not. Suppose God exists, but this God would be considered a tyrant and unjust, would people still make sacrifices and worship said deity? Evil then becomes relative to the conversation, especially since society views evil as chaotic behavior that intentionally harms humans, both physically and psychologically. As far as Socratic evil is concerned, evil is just blissful ignorance. Not questioning life is, so to speak, the ultimate sin. In fact, one of Socrates' famous quotes is "I know that I know nothing." The fear is that there is infinite knowledge that will be impossible to understand until death occurs. So for someone who says he just doesn't know anything, he is becoming wise indeed. Socrates asked why should humans please or be loved by the gods? What does a human have to offer to gods considered perfect? To answer these questions, the respondent would then have to identify who or what is a god. Because of God's infinite or mysterious knowledge, this divine being could be a helper, an educator, or the center of the universe. Suppose God is a lover, the previous question is "how do we know that they are lovable by God?" » will reappear. This then develops into the question of: what is love and what does it have to do with God? Socrates describes in his dialogue that love comes in many parts. He said that love is about giving up free will rather than about godliness as a concern. In other words, to renounce the will is to admire those we love. Yet in dialogue (12d), Euthyphro says that despite love, one fraction of justice is concerned with the care of the gods, also known as piety, while the other fraction is concerned with beings humans. As a result, his argument highlights the importance of being both just and moral. Socrates eagerly wonders what the definition of “caring” is at this point. Interestingly, care is closely linked to love. The difference between the two in matters of religion would be this: care indicates the need that a God has for a human while love is the unfailing admiration that the divine expects from its believers. Euthyphro correlates a person serving a god with the likelihood of a slave serving his master. Therefore, once again, Socratic thought would ask two questions: What are the Gods doing to say that there is a need for puny humans? and and what exactly is religion for? What is the point of piety in human life? Within the bounds of reasoning, one could say that religion helps humans live their lives with peace of mind, but Socrates goes so far as to ask: ; what does religion give that is not found elsewhere, since people, for the most part, have found solutions to many.