Socrates would have responded to Kierkegaard's claims that; the most important truth is radically individualistic and subjective, that conversing rationally leads nowhere, that faith is the only solution to the problem of happiness and that faith transcends and even cancels morality, questioning what the characteristics of Kierkegaard's philosophy. He understands that many questions will be unanswered but will ultimately lead the person to examine his or her life through self-exploration of truth. Furthermore, it would look at some factors that make up happiness such as love and justice as part of faith. Surely he too would agree with the idea that faith is independent of morality. Socrates goes further to say that the important truth is something more than fundamentally self-sufficient experience, he would say that "universal truth" is another individual's genuine knowledge of the truth. Forcing themselves to examine their life on how they should live it. However, to achieve true knowledge, Socrates asks whether knowledge of the gods or God comes before knowledge of piety or whether it is influenced by human understanding. In trying to find what the key concepts are; faith, piety, good and evil mean, and what their universal definitions are, would be forced to face human rationality. In his claim, that people are just like gods because they too argue about what is right, noble, and bad, Socrates asks why these virtues are being questioned to begin with? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To understand what makes something right or wrong, you will need to address morality and its role in understanding truth. The way explained by Socrates is that morality is relative to everyone. There is no universal agreement on what morality is because each person has their own interpretation based on their culture and religion. Socrates at the time was living when multiple Greek gods were worshiped. So when you argue or argue about morality, you are actually fighting over who is the most “loved” by the gods or who pleases the gods the most. In a sense, those who discuss morality say they have had divine revelations and know the gods. So, Socrates would then wonder how they know what the gods like and what love is? Knowing such a thing means that people understood that everything is based on the preferences and/or moods of the gods. They would evidently put gods and humans on the same level because both can change whims rather quickly and argue about a specific meaning. Human nature does not allow someone to think they are good or believe they are right, or they are morally good or they are morally right because they rationally think one is better than the other. To be good, a person might behave in a matter that provides benefits to people other than themselves. Even then, the person is not truly good as a result of his intention; Was the individual attempting to be rewarded in some way? Does the fabric of the universe that you give something to return something of equal or greater value? If people were happy and enjoyed the solution, there would be no problem because it doesn't depend on anything. For example, when you are helpful, the person is diligent. If one contributes more, then one sacrifices more. If someone gives without expecting anything in return he is called noble. 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.”Therefore, what happens when intentions are harmful by action or context? Socrates makes sure that Euthyphro realizes that those who have done "good" in order to later receive a blessing, are simply making an exchange with God (also known as ilcalculators). Socratic thinking forces the question; who knows if you will get something after the sacrifice? This question establishes that “no one deserves anything”, even those who have lost everything are still considered a fool. So, Socrates would respond that if there is no law, the gods become irrelevant. Even more, 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. Compared to Socratic evil, evil is just blissful ignorance. Not questioning life is the final sin, so to speak. In fact, one of Socrates' famous quotes happens to be "I know that I know nothing." The fear in this becomes that there is infinite knowledge out there that will be impossible to understand before death ultimately comes. So, to say that they simply know nothing, they become wise in truth. Socrates asked why humans should please the gods or be loved by them? What does a human being have to offer to the gods considered perfect? To answer these questions the person being questioned would then have to identify who or what a god is. Because of God's infinite or mysterious knowledge, this divine being could be a helper, an educator, or the center of the universe. Let's say God was a lover, the previous question was 'how do you know that God is lovable?' will appear again. This then develops into the question of; What is love and how does it relate to God? Socrates describes in his dialogue that love manifests itself in many parts. He stated that love means giving up free will rather than pity as a cure. In other words, by giving up the will you admire those you love. Yet, in dialogue (12d), Euthyphro says that, despite love, a fraction of justice concerns care for the gods also known as piety, while the other fraction cares for human beings. Consequently, his point highlights that both being just and moral are important. Socrates eagerly wonders what the definition of “caring” is at this point. Amusingly, caring is intertwined with love. The difference between the two when it comes to religion would be this; care indicates the need that a God has for a human being while love is the continuous admiration that the divine expects from its believers. Euthyphro connects the person who serves a god with the likeness of a slave who serves his master. Therefore, once again Socratic thinking would ask two questions; what are the gods doing that need puny humans? and what exactly is the purpose of religion? What is the purpose of godliness in human life? Within logic, one might 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 cannot be found elsewhere, since people, for the most part, have found solutions to many problems, even those deemed psychological. All these unanswered questions are then filled by what Kierkegaard called faith. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard suggests that Socrates' way of thinking was simply an objective uncertainty worth living and dying for. Al.