Something which many thinkers, from Plato and Aristotle to Nietzsche and Freud, have all contended with is the problem of living rationally. Where earlier Greek philosophers might have espoused a rational program for living, whether to build the just city of the Republic, or to lead the good life (as promised by Aristotle, who saw reason as a means of discerning virtue), it seems that this pursuit of living a life in pursuit, or even with the attainment of these higher truths for living becomes suspect in time of Nietzsche and Freud.
Whereas Nietzsche might view such attempts as horrifically one-sided, ignorant of the influences of power and socially accepted values upon the employment of reason, and the ‘truths’ it discovers, Freud might
…show more content…
In Euthyphro, Socrates engages a young lawyer named Euthyphro on the steps of an Athenian courthouse. Socrates offers assistance in strengthening Euthyphro’s legal argument, while graciously accepting the opportunity to gain legal advice from Euthyphro, and find out what he knows of justice, or what is morally ‘good,’ to help Socrates face his own prosecutor. But the whole process of dialogue in Euthyphro, perhaps like the whole process of coming out of Plato’s cave, discerning more between reality (i.e. the light beyond the cave) and appearance (i.e. the cast shadows on the cave walls), has the standard model of Plato’s dialogical …show more content…
Where Euthyphro is convinced that what appears to him to be the morally, as well as legally ‘correct’ way of living, is as such; Socrates, in leading Euthyphro (and us) out of the cave, challenges Euthyphro to discern between the appearance of right, good, just, etc. (e.g. as shadowy appearances on a cave wall), and to discover what these actually are in a more absolute sense (e.g. seen from a position of freedom, beyond the cave). In Apology, we are presented with a different scenario. Of course it still begs questions of right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, so on and so forth. But in Plato’s account of Socrates last defense against punishment by the state, we see this revelatory quality of philosophical inquiry being held on trial, so to speak. In other words, it is the capacity of Socrates to reveal the inherent limits—or just plain myths—of knowledge people have about their existence “in the cave” (as it were) that comes into question, namely in its ability to corrupt the youth of
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
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
One could see the final walk-away as a complete failure to a then seemingly meaningless story. Yet, I do not see it this way. Although Euthyphro walked away without a resolution, there was still much to be learned. The seemingly arrogant man that we were introduced to in the beginning, was not the same man in the final pages of the book. We may not have received a complete answer, but we did find something better; the knowledge that we cannot believe that our insights are always correct. And this is what Socrates strove to do: to evoke thought. When put on trial, we see this questioning is not an isolated occurrence as he states, “I believe the god has placed me in the city. I never cease to rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long and everywhere I find myself in your company” (Apology, 30e). Socrates believed it was his duty to live a life of service in order to make people open their minds. In order for people to grow in wisdom, they needed to realize their ignorance. We need to be challenged in order to grow and it is through experiences, like Euthyphro’s, in which we become more
Socratic questioning challenges authority and assumptions of the individuals who claim that they completely understand topics such as justice, truth, and piety. Plato demonstrates in Euthyphro that in order to acquire truth, one must search for a deeper understanding of topics through questioning. When one questions ideas however, one must use rational thinking in order to get clearer explanations. Plato shows his readers that rational thought and standards must be applied when seeking truth when Socrates criticizes Euthyphro’s explanation of justice on the grounds that they fail to abide to the norms of rationality.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates uses religious appeals, proof by contradictions and various examples to argue for his innocence in court. Socrates is forced to argue for the sake of his life to prove that he is not guilty. In Socrates’ speech, however, he is not apologizing for anything instead, the word comes from the Greek word “apologia,” that translates to a speech made in defense. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates’ decision to stay in Athens and to accept suicide was unethical, because he purposefully antagonized the people who control his fate and this ultimately led to the death penalty.
This philosophical study will define the relationship between morality and religion in the Socratic dialogue of the Euthyphro by Plato. The primary argument put forth by Socrates is to determine the causality of morality/piousness in and unto itself or by the approval of the gods. Socrates attempts to question the moral and religious authority of Euthyphro, which defines the important originations of the “moral good” through the command of the gods. However, Socrates defines the original presence of the morality/piousness before the gods can “approve” or disapprove” of its goodness. This is the theoretical position of denying the issue of "divine command” of the gods’ existence before morality/piousness, which Socrates refutes in the arguments
The story that is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro proposes a dilemma that has since been a very controversial subject. When Socrates encounters Euthyphyo, he is on his way to trail to face charges against his own father. His father had been accused o...
Many people have gone through their lives conforming their beliefs and practices for the sake of fitting in or for the happiness of others, but Socrates was not one of these people. In “The Apology” Plato shows Socrates unwillingness to conform through a speech given by Socrates while on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens and believing in false gods. Although the title of the dialogue was labeled “The Apology,” Socrates’ speech was anything but that, it was a defense of himself and his content along his philosophical journey. At no time during the trial was Socrates willing to change his ways in order to avoid punishment, two reasons being his loyalty to his God and his philosophical way of life.
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for his so called, “corruption of the youth,” because of his philosophies. He is straightforward and confused about the chargers brought up against him. Socrates raises an argument in his defense and believes he has no reason to be sorry. Socrates believes if he is punished and killed, no one would around to enlighten the people. This view draws a connection to the question posed, “Are we
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
When reading Nietzsche's "On the Uses and Disadvantages of History on Life" and Freud's "Mourning and Melancholia", we are immediately struck by the similar warning each provides for us. Speaking posthumously, Nietzsche predicts the postmodern skepticism associated with knowledge in general, and in addition prefigures Freud in his psychoanalysis of knowledge. These two monumental works stand by themselves, however each contribute to a broader understanding of certain practices and psychological processes that can do tremendous disservice to individuals and cultures, helping us to reevaluate ourselves in the present, in order to preserve ourselves into the future.
Some of the best sources of information about Socrates' philosophical views are the early dialogues of his student Plato, who tried to provide a faithful picture of the methods and teachings of the great master. The Apology is one of the many-recorded dialogues about Socrates. It is about how Socrates was arrested and charged with corrupting the youth, believing in no god(s) (Atheism) and for being a Sophist. He attended his trial and put up a good argument. I believe that Socrates was wrongfully accused and should not have been sentenced to death. Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges.
Keeping true to Socratic/Platonic methodology, questions are raised in the Euthyphro by conversation; specifically “What is holiness?” After some useless deliberation, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro ends inconclusively. Euthyphro varying definitions of piety include “What I do is pious to the gods,” and, “What is pleasing to the gods is pious.” Socrates proves these definitions to be insufficient, which leads us to the Apology.
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...