In this paper, I am going to show how Socrates rejects Euthyphro’s definition of piety as what is loved by all the gods; I will call it the god-loved, and how Euthyphro fails to give an account of piety. Socrates first asks Euthyphro “is the pious loved by the gods because it’s pious? Or is it pious because it’s loved?” (Euth. 9e). Seeing Euthyphro is confused with the question, Socrates goes on and asks the question more clearly as he states the difference between a thing that is being carried and carrying, a thing that is being seen and seeing. (Euth. 10a). Socrates’s goal here is to point out that there is some difference between a thing that is doing the action and a thing that is being done the action to, like there is a difference …show more content…
So, we have four propositions like this: (1) The pious is being loved by the god because it is pious. By substituting god-loved for the pious, we then have (2) the god-loved is being loved by the god because it is god-loved. And (3) The god loved is loved because it is being loved by the gods, if we were to replace the god-loved with the pious in (3) we then have (4) the pious is pious because it is being loved by the god. But then we see the contradictions here. (2) contradicts (3) and (1) contradicts (4). The god-loved in so far is god-loved because it is being loved, just the apple in so far is an eaten thing because it is being eaten. It’s not the case that the god-loved is being loved because it is god-loved, just like it’s not that the apple is being eaten because it is an eaten thing. Same thing applies for (1) and (4), the pious in so far is being loved because it is pious, it’s not that the pious is pious because it is being loved. This is why Euthyphro is wrong for identifying pious with …show more content…
The pious is loved by the god because it is pious, there is something in the nature of being pious which makes the gods love it. However, this is not the case for the god-loved, the thing is said to be god-loved because it is being loved by the god. The difference here is, the nature of the pious is independent of anything, the pious has a quality of being loved by the gods, but even if the god didn’t love the pious, the pious would still be pious. This is the opposite case for the god-loved, whether a thing is god-loved does depend on whether the gods really love it. If the gods decided not to love it, then that thing would no longer be god-loved. The nature of pious never changes, regardless of the circumstances; the affect or quality of the pious, which is being god-loved, does change, it relies upon the gods. Therefore, when Euthyphro says the pious is what all the god loves, he is giving an affection of being pious, not the nature of pious, and Socrates is looking for the answer of the latter one. After all, it is clear to see that why Euthyphro has not given out the definition of pious from the statement “the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious”. The statement explains nothing about what is pious. We can ask the question: why do the gods love it? The answer would be: because it is pious. Then we may ask: why is it pious? This question
In the Euthyphro, Plato describes the proceedings of a largely circular argument between Socrates and Euthyphro, a self-declared prophet and pious man, over the nature of piety and even of the gods themselves. The issues raised in this dialogue have been reinterpreted and extended to remain relevant even with a modern theological framework, so much so that the central issue is now known simply as ?the Euthyphro dilemma.? This is based on Socrates? two-way choice which he offers in the dialogue:
Certainly, Socrates’ arguments about the limitations of godly knowledge of the “moral good” devolve the idea of divine command as a cause of piety, but more importantly, it defines the philosophical evaluation of piety as a way to educate Euthyphro to analyze his pre-assumed beliefs with greater conviction. In this dialogue, the issue of the “moral good” becomes a more complex relationship between Euthyphro’s religious and moral perception of philosophy: “I told you a short while ago, Socrates, that it is a considerable task to acquire any precise knowledge of these things” (177). This new perspective defines the effectiveness of Socrates’ argument to dispel the overly confident assumption that the gods approve of piety, since piety has its own unique qualities that need to be defined. This moral and religious relationship is ambiguous because Socrates has opened the possibility of Euthyphro coming to his own conclusions about the gods and the “moral good”, which should be presumed by religious doctrines or in the divine command of the
Consequently, In Plato's Euthyphro, our acquaintance with Socrates is immensely beneficial to society, as we obtain awareness on such an innovative method of achieving intuition. The Socratic approach is now a fundamental approach implemented in daily conversation in society Furthermore, not only is Socrates is able to verify that the true seekers are the wise; he also validates the notion that the answers to many questions are merely questions. Simply because, life is so debate that certain subjects begin to intertwine. To sum up, Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this Socratic irony, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
He establishes that “the pious is what all the gods love”. Socrates immediately asks a clarifying question, asking whether the gods love pious acts because they are pious or if it because since the gods love these actions it makes them pious. Euthyphro choses to say that the gods love pious acts because they are pious, which was a mistake in his thought process. Euthyphro committed the begging the question fallacy. Socrates shows that although Euthyphro is deemed an expert in this field, he does know understand piety at all. He has brought the conversation to the beginning by saying that pious acts are pious because they are pious, which is not an explanation. It is redundant in thinking, which is what Socrates wanted to avoid. At the end when Socrates tries to further push Euthyphro’s thinking, Euthyphro merely gives up and avoids Socrates altogether. Plato again illustrates the importance of applying rational thought when one ventures to find the truth. Euthyphro did not ask himself insightful and challenging questions to further push his idea towards the truth. Had he use rational standards, he would developed his idea in a much clearer
Socrates was philosophizing in order to make people recognize this. Maybe they did not want to be challenged, but Socrates persisted and this persistence caused him to become beloved to some, yet hated by others. His contribution to Athens was to evoke thought, and although he did this well, it would become his poison, quite literally. Regardless, the story of the Euthyphro is one of the classic examples of how Socrates was making his name and awakening people’s minds to the thoughts that they did not think to have. Euthyphro’s conversation with Socrates was only one of many and I believe it is safe to say that the frustration on the subject’s behalf was not an isolated
When Socrates asks Euthyphro to define the word pious he dodges the question and rather gives an explanation of what being pious is. Socrates is trying to figure out if it was a good thing for Euthyphro to turn in his own father. Euthyphro then says that any of the gods won’t care if they (humans) care for them. And with that said that would mean “pious is pious because it’s loved by the gods” (Prompt). It won’t matter if a citizen worships the gods or if they do what is right or wrong; in the end, the gods aren’t affected by it at all. Turning, Euthyphro’s father in is wrong for the reason that the gods don’t care what he did, because it doesn’t affect them. If Euthyphro would have kept the secret about his father, then Euthyphro could’ve protected him and lied for his father because it’s his father. The majority of people would say it was morally wrong to turn in their fathers, because it’s their fathers and they could protect them. If he actually loved him, then he wouldn’t have done that. But since, he did do it, then that would mean that he cares for the law much
Before getting into the principles of Socrates, it is important to have some context on these two stories to understand how each of these exemplify philosophical understanding. “Euthyphro” is a dialogue between Socrates and
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault...
When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F.
Imagine the time just after the death of Socrates. The people of Athens were filled with questions about the final judgment of this well-known, long-time citizen of Athens. Socrates was accused at the end of his life of impiety and corruption of youth. Rumors, prejudices, and questions flew about the town. Plato experienced this situation when Socrates, his teacher and friend, accepted the ruling of death from an Athenian court. In The Last Days of Socrates, Plato uses Socrates’ own voice to explain the reasons that Socrates, though innocent in Plato’s view, was convicted and why Socrates did not escape his punishment as offered by the court. The writings, “Euthyphro,” “The Apology,” “Crito,” and “Pheado” not only helped the general population of Athens and the friends and followers of Socrates understand his death, but also showed Socrates in the best possible light. They are connected by their common theme of a memoriam to Socrates and the discussion of virtues. By studying these texts, researchers can see into the culture of Athens, but most important are the discussions about relationships in the book. The relationships between the religion and state and individual and society have impacted the past and are still concerns that are with us today.
Socrates attempts to make other people reason well and therefore be virtuous by performing their human function; I believe that this action inwardly reflects Socrates’s own virtue. For example, if a professor can effectively teach mathematics to his students, then he most likely holds knowledge of the subject within himself. In a similar way, Socrates instills virtue in other people, which shows that he himself is a virtuous being. Although some people criticize him, evidence of his positive impact is reinforced by the approval and support of his friends in the Apology. While promoting virtue when alive, Socrates wishes to continue to encourage virtue even after death. For example, at the onset of his death, Socrates asks the jurors to ensure that his sons are given grief if they care for anything else more than virtue (Plato and Grube 44). While Socrates could have been thinking about himself or other things at that moment, he is thinking of how to guide people towards living virtuously. Both his actions while living and his intentions after death reveal that Socrates wished to aid people in living virtuous lives, which highlight his own state of
This is a reasonable answer on all fronts. Not to say that Euthyphro was not a holy man, but he certainly could not define his own existence- which is the exact sentiment which Socrates was trying to provoke. There is a clear difference between the definition of Socrates and the definitions of Euthyphro.
Socrates’s argument that what is holy and what is approved of by the gods are not the same thing is convincing because they both are two different things. Like Socrates stated in EUTHYPHRO, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” This connects back to Socrates argument because it states that the gods choose what is pious because they love it or is it pious because it being loved be the gods. The gods are determining the definition of pious instead of letting it be defined. In a way they are changing the definition of it because their peers will look up to them and follow what they have to say. Socrates arguments relate to this because if the gods don’t approve of something
The rule of Biblical interpretation that was not followed and should have been was when a contradiction like this appears, the emphasis should only be given to the multiple passages that are clear rather than to a passage that is isolated and obscure. The only basis for establishing a doctrine cannot be based off the historical occurrence of an event. As well as the writer’s original intent must be the only valid interpretation of a Scripture passage.
The interesting dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro demonstrates this Socratic method of questioning in order to gain a succinct definition of a particular idea, such as piety. Though the two men do not come to a conclusion about the topic in the conversation seen in Euthyphro, they do discover that piety is a form of justice, which is more of a definition than their previous one. Their conversation also helps the reader to decipher what makes a good definition. Whenever Euthyphro attempts to define piety, Socrates seems to have some argument against the idea. Each definition offered, therefore, becomes more succinct and comes closer to the actual concept of piety, rather than just giving an example or characteristic of it. To be able to distinguish between a good definition and a bad one is the first step to defining what Socrates so desperately wished to define: w...