More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of ancient greek philosophy
Essay on ancient greek philosophy
Influence of ancient greek philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Socrates asks Euthyphro to give another definition of holiness, because the previous definition, that what is holy is what is approved of by the gods, has been disproven. Socrates suggests that maybe everything that is holy is just. Socrates quotes a line of poetry, to demonstrate his point: "where fear is, there is too is reverence." Socrates disagrees with that idea, saying that there are many things that people fear, such as sickness and poverty, which we do not revere. However, he points out, where there is reverence, there is also fear: a feeling of reverence and shame for an act can be seen as fearing a bad reputation. His ideas about justice and holiness are comparable; he suggests that holiness is a part of justice, but that there may
Plato's Socratic dialog Euthyphro is in many ways archetypal of the sort of philosophy that Socrates is thought to have been interested in. In it (as in most classic 'Socratic dialogs'), Socrates seeks out a person who claims to have a certain sort of knowledge. He then proceeds to show that these experts do not possess this knowledge by getting them to contradict themselves. With this in mind, I will discuss the three definitions of the word 'pious' that the character Euthyphro gives to Socrates, and Socrates' problems with each of these definitions.
In the Euthyphro, Euthyphro himself gives three proposals of piety. First, the pious is to prosecute the wrongdoer and the impious is not to prosecute the wrongdoer. Socrates disputes this example as lacking generality. He believed that in order to define piety, one had to find the form that made all pious acts pious. An example of a pious act does not in turn define piety. Euthyphro’s second attempt stated that the pious is loved by the gods, while the impious was hated by them. Again, Socrates objects, saying that although it passed the generality requirement, there was no conformity among the objects dear to the gods. After all, the gods had different opinions as did humans. Euthyphro then tries to modify his second attempt by narrowing the requirement to what is loved by all gods or hated by all gods. Socrates deflates this notion as well. He questions wether the pious is loved because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is loved. To be loved is a quality given by an act of love. The mere fact of being loved by a god does not give meaning to piety or make the act pious. The point was to find out what a pious act is before declaring it to be god-loved. Euthyphro’s third proposal was to say that piety is a knowledge of how to give to, and beg from the gods, or a part of justice concerned with care of the gods. However, Socrates was pretty blunt in pointing out that the gods lack nothing a human could provide, therefore making those acts of prayer or sacrifice, nothing but for the pleasure of the gods. The acts would then fit under what is beloved by the gods, which was already defeated as the second proposal. The definition of justice was left for a later di...
Socrates is arguing, that without knowing what being righteousness or corrupt is and when it will occur you will not be able to contain courage. If Socrates were to change his theory to state that anyone can encounter wisdom of righteousness and of the anti, that they are representing courage. Which will make the revision true, having wisdom on a subject as broad as good or bad makes it hard to determine what makes up courage and how much wisdom you need to encounter in order to have it. (199d3-e7)
“It is not living that matters, but living rightly” - Socrates. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro what the definition of piety and impiety are, so that he may survive the indictment set upon him by Meletus. Throughout their dialogue Euthyphro concludes that what is pious is what all the gods love and what is impious is what all gods hate, and in response Socrates challenges his claim by asking, “is the [pious] approved by the gods because it’s [pious], or is it [pious] because it’s approved?” Socrates’ question is important because it helps uncover the absurdity in Euthyphro’s logic, the question leads to personal knowledge of our motives, it also leads to richer philosophical inquiry, and it teaches In its rigor, the question attempts to figure out what the essence of piety is instead of conforming to the popular belief that the gods decide what is good. Throughout the Euthyphro, the titled character can only find a few definitions of what piety is, and they are all variations of the same definitions he starts with, “what’s lovable to the gods that’s pious, and what’s not lovable to them that’s impious” (Euthyphro 13 7a).
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...
Socrates encounters Euthyphro outside the court of Athens. Socrates has been called to court on charges of impiety by Meletus, and Euthyphro has come to prosecute his own father for having unintentionally killed a murderous hired hand. Socrates flatters Euthyphro, suggesting that Euthyphro must be a great expert in religious matters if he is willing to prosecute his own father on so questionable a charge. Euthyphro concurs that he does indeed know all there is to be known about what is holy. Socrates urges Euthyphro to instruct him and to teach him what holiness is, since Euthyphro's teaching might help Socrates in his trial against Meletus.
I something right because God says it is or does God recognize a moral code even superior to him? If there are no moral standards other than God’s will the God’s commands become arbitrary. If one day God decides that stealing is pious and other day God decides isn’t pious how can one action be both pious and non-pious? At any instant any “immoral” act such as murder, debauchery etc. can become “moral” if God wills so. Hence, this diminishes God’s power. Socrates is seeking a universal answer to what piety is; what do pious things have in common that can be used to identify them. However, we never get a clear understanding of this. The philosopher doesn’t take into account that at neither point in time do both Euthyphro and Socrates agree on a definition of piety. This doesn’t allow the reader to fully grasp what piety actually is. Instead they are left fumbling in the dark and forced to come up with their own version of it. However, it is possible that Plato purposely does this as he is unsure himself of what piety truly is and hence leaves it ambiguous for the reader to decipher on his/her own. As Euthyphro is unable to come up with a successful definition of piety Socrates puts forward his own version saying piety loosely goes forward with “justice.” However, this is also not a definition of piety either as it is just another example of it. This is because any action can be just or
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.
In the first part, Socrates is in a conversation with Euthyphro, who is a professional priest, while on their way to court for Socrates’ trial. Euthyphro was going to the courthouse because he was about to prosecute his father for murdering one of his servants who was also a murderer that killed another fellow slave. Being charged with impiety, and having a priest with him that claims to know what piety is, Socrates takes the opportunity to learn from Euthyphro what piety is really about.
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 first definition offered to Socrates by Euthyphro, who claimed to know all about what was pious, and not, was to do as Euthyphro did in prosecuting his father, or anyone who had committed murder, sacrilege, or a similar crime, regardless of relation to the accuser, as Zeus had done Cronos (Plato & Jowett, 2008). Socrates attested that he was in the position of being accused of impiety because of his lack of knowledge and belief in the gods on which society was then based. He questioned Euthyphro as to whether the tales of the gods were true, to which Euthyphro pompously claimed to know for a fact that they were. In desiring to know with surety as Euthyphro claimed to, he further pursued the question of piety, without the diversion of determining which acts could be deemed as pious or impious.
Socrates and Euthyphro sought after the definition of piety and impiety. In Euthyphro’s attempt to explain the terms, he gave examples of the gods and what they believed was pious or impious. Still determined to hear the definition rather than examples, Socrates realized to define piety and impiety, we have to first answer the question of “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” – Known as the Euthyphro dilemma. It is termed “dilemma” because the question makes you choose between two options, both of which are unfavorable to theism. Either God is not good or God is not sovereign. I will discuss in more detail what the first and second horns of the dilemma mean. Then I will discuss the weaknesses of each. Finally I will explain why the first horn is the better of the two options.
He changes his strategy, Socrates does not ask Euthyphro to define piety, instead asks how is an unholy action deemed bad, how is a holy action deemed “good”? Euthyphro’s answer is that an action is good if the Gods approve of it. His answer is now a gold mine for Socrates, who proceeds to present his case by stating that the Gods approve of things that are good and disapprove of things that are not good. His cogent reasoning is compelling enough to cause Euthyphro to quickly agree, he might not have agreed so readily had he understood the extent of what that meant. Very pleased with himself, Socrates then asks whether the Gods love what is pious, or if something pious because it is loved by the Gods. This section of the dialog ends with Euthyphro admitting truth to both, which is not possible. Euthyphro does not understand that the state of a thing does not change what that thing
Crito stated the opinion of the others should be feared because they control his ultimate destiny. Socrates is not disturbed. He believes that death is not necessarily an evil thing. It is the committing of the senseless act that should be feared rather than having to die. Many think that it is within their power to do evil to one, who has lost their good favor, but this is not the case. They cannot make a person wise or foolish, nor can they cause him to do good or evil.
Socrates questions Thrasymachus on why he adds the detail of the stronger to his definition of justice. Socrates than asks, if it is just for everyone to follow the laws that the ruler has made, if the ruler has made unjust laws. His argument is that people, even rulers make mistakes. This meaning that if a ruler makes mistakes on the law does that still make it just. It is a very conflicting argument to think about, if the rules are not just then why should they be followed but the rules were also put in place by someone who is supposed to know the difference between just and unjust and choose correctly. This relates to what Socrates says during his trial portrayed in the Apology. Socrates claims