I got to work but write a philosophical response to Plato’s euthyphro Write a 900-1000 word paper (12 point font) on one primary source from the anthology portion of our textbook. You must analyze the text at hand, and give your own critique of it; you must accurately summarize what your chosen author is saying, with a combination of paraphrase and occasional direct quote, and you must also make your own argument about the text, explaining clearly strengths of weakness of the author's argument. In a way this is like a literature paper in that you must work closely with a primary text, but you are analyzing a philosophy text, and so your own philosophical response needs to be part of the paper. If you just summarize the author, it is just a book report, and not a real philosophy paper. I need to see your own critical thinking in response to the text. youmay work with any excerpt in the anthology, but a sample of possibilities would include Plato's Euthyphro, Aristotle's passage from his Ethics, Epicurus' Letter to Moneceous, Epictetus, Resigning oneself to Fate, and so on through Hume's topical excerpts, such as On Miracles Xenophanes says “The gods have not revealed all things to mortals. By seeking, humans find out, in time, what is better.” Do you believe that humans make progress in discovering truth over time? How much time is required to discover the truth of how the universe works? Do humans make moral progress as well as scientific progress? What does Xenophanes mean when he suggests that we cannot exactly know the truth, but that our discoveries are “like truth.” Post once by the due date, and make at least one substantial reply within 24 hours. Making more than one meaningful reply can raise your score in all blog assignments. Redneck Gospel" is a parody of the way the Christian message is sometimes preached in the American South. It is written in the literary persona of the evangelist, Elwood McClarity, a preacher who is clear-minded indeed. Read the poem, review the Speaking of God powerpoint, and then analyze: what would Xenophanes have to say about "Redneck Gospel"? Xenophanes, as you recall, drew attention to the problem of anthropomorphism in speaking of God. Redneck Gospel, by Elwood McClarity God's angry. We're all sinners. He's gonna have to kick the shit out of somebody. But the heavenly Father is also reasonable and loving. He doesn't want to have to kick the shit out of EVERYONE. So he sent his only son Jesus, who never did anything wrong. God kicked the shit out of Jesus So he wouldn't have to kick the shit out of us. As it is written in the good book, "Better him than me!" And so we give thanks to the Father, who demonstrated his divine justice by beating an innocent man to death. By the way, if you don't accept God's love, He'll torture you forever. Discuss possible meanings of Protagoras' saying, "Man (The human being) is the measure of all things." Your post should show some evidence of reading the assigned pages in the text Fieser, 30-31; Anthology p. 10) . Make one post by the due date, and at least one substantial reply to another member of the class within two days. Related to Euthyphro: If God exists, does God value and command (or prohibit) some behaviors because those actions are right or wrong, or is an action right or wrong simply and only BECAUSE God values and commands (or prohibits) it? What are the implications of answering the question either way? What problems arise when you answer the question either way? To answer the question, Consider the following valid syllogisms: Whatever God loves is holy. God loves animal sacrifices roasted on an open flame, with the smell of burnt fat ascending to heaven. Therefore, animal sacrifices roasted on an open flame, with the smell of burnt fat ascending to heaven, are holy, Whatever God loves is holy. God loves when humans kill one another. Therefore humans killing one another is holy. Conversely, Whatever God loves is holy. God loves when humans care for one another. Therefore, humans caring for one another is holy. The syllogisms are both valid. However, can both conclusions be true? Post once by the due date, and give at least one substantial reply to another member of the class within 2 days. Read the Trial of Socrates in the Anthology ("A Live Well-lived"). What were the main accusations made against Socrates by Meletus? What strategy did Socrates use to defend himself? What was Socrates trying to accomplish? Was he trying to win the trial? Give evidence for your interpretation. Post once by the due date, and then make at least one substantial reply within 2 days.