Euthyphro in The Last Days of Socrates is based greatly around Socrates’ examining the human mind and digging for the answers to rather obvious questions. A specific instance of rhetoric within this section of the book is when Socrates is talking to Euthyphro and says, “And perhaps, Euthyphro, when asked what the holy is, you don’t want to point out the essence for me, but to tell me of some attribute which attaches to it, saying that holiness has the attribute of being approved by all the gods; what it is, you’ve not said yet” (Eut. 22.11a). In this particular section of Euthyphro, Socrates is examining Euthyphro to figure out what is holy and unholy, what is just and unjust. Euthyphro is incapable of answering Socrates questions because he cannot explain in detail what he is thinking. This specific instance of rhetoric is used to Socrates’ advantage because he shows that he is aware of w...
Throughout his life, Socrates engaged in critical thinking as a means to uncover the standards of holiness, all the while teaching his apprentices the importance of continual inquiry in accordance with obeying the laws. Socrates primarily focuses on defining that which is holy in The Euthyphro – a critical discussion that acts as a springboard for his philosophical defense of the importance of lifelong curiosity that leads to public inquiry in The Apology. Socrates continues his quest for enlightenment in The Crito, wherein he attempts to explain that while inquiry is necessary, public curiosity has its lawful price, thus those who inquire must both continue to do so and accept the lawful consequences of their inquiry. Each of the above values, holiness, inquiry, and just lawful obedience, interlock under what Socrates describes in The Republic as, “the very cause of knowledge and truth, [it is also] the chief objective in the pursuit of knowledge,” (Sterling & Scott 198) – the good. The good embodies each Socratic pursuit: it acts as an umbrella for all things perceived in what Socrates names, “the intelligible sector,” (Sterling & Scott 199).
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
At his trial there were two kinds of accusers the ancient and the present. His accusers of the present were Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, representing their respective fields. They claim that he is corrupting the youth, that he does not believe in the gods of the state, that he is a doer of evil, and that he makes a weaker argument seem stronger. Socrates wished to address all of these accusations and prove his innocence. On the account of corrupting the youth he calls Meletus to the stand for questioning. He basically asks if he is a bad influence on the youth then what would be a good influence. Meletus answers that the law is a fine influence for the youth. Socrates asserts that those who influence the law are only male, then Meletus asserts that the whole population of Athens is a positive influence on the youth. Socrates us...
The assigned reading was in the Euthyphro. The reading is about Socrates and Euthyphro having a discussion of what piety is. In this paper, I will discuss the moral significance of the question that Socrates proposed. And that is “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?”(Prompt). I will start off by giving a brief summary of the reading and then I will move on to the question. In the question I will discuss the moral significance of it and how it affects us in today’s society. Finally, I will end with my conclusion.
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
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 starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.
Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy were not as sophisticated and complex as they are now. The outcome of the trial was that Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to be put to death by hemlock poisoning. The question is whether Socrates was truly guilty or just another person fallen to the early form of democracy of a people who were possibly jealous and afraid of Socrates. However, by understanding Socrates intentions, it is clear that he was in fact innocent of the above charges, and was wrongly accused and executed.
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.
What exactly is Socrates being accused of? "Socrates is guilty of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others these same things" (29). Socrates is charged with impiety, a person who does not believe in the gods of Athens. Socrates defends this charge, claiming that he was propositioned by the gods through the Oracle of Delphi, to question people's wisdom. He states, "...but when god stationed me, as I supposed and assumed, ordering me to live philosophizing and examining myself and others...that my whole care is to commit no unjust or impious deed." By claiming that defense, Socrates manages to sway Meletus toward his point. This point being that Socrates cannot both be atheistic and to believe in demons, for this would contradict his not believing in gods at all, s...
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.
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.