Dissolute Deity

I am perplexed by how piety and impiety are discussed in respect to the Greek Gods, considering the disruptive relationships between the Greek Olympians as portrayed in early Greek mythology. (Which was, likely, what Socrates (Plato) was getting at in Euthyphro?) Most famously, Zeus, and his morally confusing depiction in Greek mythology. Zeus, father of the Gods and ruler of Olympus, shares one thing in common with Euthyphro: the betrayal of his father. In a deliberate act of defiance Zeus overthrew his father, Cronus', rule over Olympus which, to some extent, undermines familial and paternal values. He then spent much of his marital life frolicking around with women other than his wife, Hera, which I'm assuming was morally questionable in Athens' mostly monogamous society. I'm not entirely sure where this leaves Zeus', and therefor the Greek's, familial values... which, in turn, make Euthyphro's dialogue all the more confusing... Though I understand that Zeus, for the most part, was considered as a loving paternal deity who cared wholesomely for the less fortunate, and was an advocate for fairness among mortals, I am confused by the examination of piety and impiety in relation to the God's, considering their behavior in mythology could often be likened to the same faults as mortals (Given these examples of Zeus in mythology)  ...

 In summary, what we (generally speaking) consider as moral and immoral today most likely doesn't parallel with what Athenians regarded as pious or impious. Thus, considering Zeus' behavior in the very mythology that defined religion for Athenians, I could potentially assume that the betrayal of Euthyphro's father wouldn't necessarily have been as damning or shocking in Athens as I was originally under the impression it would have been, based on text/class discussions. So what are we really supposed to make of Euthyphro's decision to indite his father, and Socrates' resulting surprise? What are we supposed to make of the Athenian court and its values that were so often closely tied with the perceived values of the Gods? Interesting. 

I know there must be something I'm missing, either in Greek mythology or Athenian culture or, most probably, both. Ideas? 

Apology: one of the Dialogues, or all of the Dialogues in one?

During this read-through of Plato's "Apology", instead of reading and perceiving the work as one of Plato's famous dialogues, as I had done thus far, I read the "Apology" as if it were meant to be a conclusion of sorts to his many dialogues; as if it were an attempt to address all of Plato's dialogues, rather than simply being on of them.

Aiding to this perception are the familiar aspects of  'conclusions' that can be found within the "Apology", such as summerization and interpretation. Firstly, though there is no direct summary of any of the dialogues within the Apology, the work seems to give a general thematic outlay for the other dialogues; those who claim to know (such as Meletus) are shown not to know by one who professes to know nothing for certain.

Secondly, and more importantly, the "Apology" provides something that can be likened to an interpretation or conclusion of sorts by drawing everything back to Socrates' meta-philosophy, or how he is portrayed, by Plato, to be perceiving philosophy. Socrates' methods of investigation and conceptualization of the nature and function of philosophy are laid out within "The Apology" and practiced within the other Dialogues. It is quite clearly displayed throughout Socrates' 'explanatory monologue' that his conception of philosophy is one that doesn't stop at thought, but spills over into action and application in life; philosophy is taught, not only through speech, but also through what one wears, eats, where one moves, etc... This conception repeats itself throughout the dialogues as thought, wisdom, and [what is believed to be] rational understanding, are pulled out of the forefront and are, instead, overshadowed by tests through real life application.

   
There is, of course, much room for error in this interpretation (considering Socrates doesn't even appear in Laws, but who knows, maybe Plato didn't write that one??? :) ), and I do not mean to suggest that the Apology was meant as a conclusion, since it was far more likely written before the others. However, in reading it as such, I have found the Apology to, not only appropriately foreshadow many of the sunasia (am I using that correctly?) Socrates and is interlocutors will engage in throughout Plato's dialogues, but also provide a blanketing concept of Socrates' meta-philosophy that will be an overlaying theme throughout most of Plato's dialogues. ( I have not yet read them all so I cannot be certain, however, I'm excited to revisit how the Apology ties into other Dialogues further towards the end of the semester!)