In the reading Euthyphro, it is an argument between Euthyphro (the priest) and Socrates (who is being indicted by another man). This reading is a dialogue between the two men arguing on the same topic, even though they each gave examples, they still can’t figure out the answer but going “around and around” with the original question. Since Euthyphro and Socrates gave a lot of examples during the argument, I was really confused when reading it. I couldn’t organize my thoughts on the reading. However with the example of Euthyphro persecuting his own father for “murdering” a drunk murder, I start to have an idea of what they are arguing about, in my opinion, it is a question with no right answer for. No matter which answer was given, the result…
In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions Euthyphro, a religious expert, who he runs into outside of a courthouse in Athens. Socrates was being indicted on the charges of corrupting the youth, and Euthyphro was prosecuting his own father for murder. Socrates was bewildered as to why Euthyphro would indict his own blood of a crime. In an attempt to explain to Socrates why it was the right thing to do, Euthyphro proclaims that he is acting piously by taking his father to court. Euthyphro adds that his relatives are mad at him because “it is impious for a son to prosecute his father for murder. But their ideas of the divine attitude to piety and impiety are wrong” (4e). Because of this, Socrates enquires about what Euthyphro believes piety truly is, to which he provides his four definitions that Socrates ultimately disagrees with.…
Socrates and Euthyphro unexpectedly run into each other outside of the Athens courthouse. Euthyphro went to the courthouse to prosecute his father for killing one of his servants, who was a murderer. Socrates was summoned to court to be charged with disturbing the youth. After Euthyphro stated his business at the courthouse, Socrates assumes that he must be a religious expert if he is willing to prosecute his own father on such a serious charge. Euthyphro then agrees with Socrates that he does indeed know all there is to know about what is holy. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him what holiness is, in hope that it will help with his trial.…
In the reading Euthyphro, Plato’s end goal is to show that there is no rational relationship between “the pious” and “to be loved by the Gods.” The point of Socrates argument is that he is ultimately asking Euthyphro to explain piety by questioning the characteristics of something that is loved. Is something loved because it is good, is it loved because it is popular, what makes something loved?…
In this Essay, I would be outlining the dialogue held by Socrates and Euthyphro, Both Socrates and Euthyphro were in court, one facing charges on impiety the other, and the came to prosecute his own father. Socrates decided to have chat with Euthyphro regarding piety so that he can get points or to win the case against Meletus. Moreover, Euthyphro himself stated that he knows what is holy and unholy as Euthyphro was a man considered educated in religious affairs. Also Euthyphro claimed to be all wise, which would make him a Sophist, But Socrates made no claims and declared himself uneducated, so he questioned Euthyphro regarding piety in order expose him on how silly his statement seem to be. Both of them were having an argument where Euthyphro…
Piety, says Euthyphro, is what all the gods love, and the impious is what all the gods hate. Socrates is not satisfied by this definition, either, and so he tries a different tack to extract a definition from Euthyphro. Socrates does this by asking: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” When Euthyphro seems unsure, Socrates simplifies his question with an analogy. He asks Euthyphro if something is “carried” because it is “a thing carried,” or if it is “carried” because something is carrying it. Both men agree that the action confers the state of being. That is, a thing loved is so because someone loves it, and the thing itself is not creating a state of “loving” within the people around it. Likewise, being loved is not a state inherent to the thing loved, but is the result of the love others bear for the thing. Moving from his analogy back to Euthyphro’s definition, Socrates shows the fallacy in Euthyphro’s statement. Being god-loved cannot confer piety, as it confers “god-loved-ness” instead. Therefore, in Euthyphro’s statement, all the gods loving something would make that thing universally god-loved, but in no way makes it pious. An act is loved by the gods because it is pious, and not the other way…
He does this by saying that wicked people do harm to the people closest to them while good people do good to those closest to them. Meletus agrees with this which leads Socrates to the point that no person would willingly choose to live among the wicked as it would cause him harm. With this being the case Socrates argues that he cannot be validly charged with willingly corrupting the youth as it would only do he harm. And if he is corrupting the youth, he is not doing it willing. IF this is the case, there is no need for a trial and punishment. Socrates states that if he is unwillingly corrupting the youth, it is necessary to correct him rather than punish him. Socrates gives Meletus too options. Either he is not corrupting the youth (as that would cause him harm, or he is doing it unwillingly. Either way, neither option is a crime worth of death. With this argument, Socrates is able to invalidate the charge of corrupting the youth. It is clear by Socrates description of the wording of the charges that the charges are illogical and serve no basis for a…
Forum 2: Plato - Holiness and Deities' Approval My initial view on Plato’s argument that what is holy and what is approved by the gods are not the same, is that this argument is convincing. I will also, show that Euthyphro would not have given any reasonable response to the argument in response to the second question and final part of the assignment, which requires if we can think of any arguments Euthyphro could have made and what his response would have been. However, before I delve fully into evaluating and buttressing my position, it is apropos to take a synoptic and retrospective incursion to the genesis of Plato’s conclusion to fully equip us with the historic origin and import of his deductions. In the course…
While there are varying characterizations and notions about what constitutes piety, in Euthyphro by Plato, an attempt is made to formulate an ultimate definition for what is pious and what is impious. According to Euthyphro, the most reasonable explanation of piety is tending to the gods, showing reverence and respect for them, or ultimately, doing anything benefitting to the gods. Piety can be narrowed down into simpler terms; it consists of everything that all the gods love, while impiety is everything that all the gods hate. Socrates emphasizes the belief…
Euthyphro’s second definition is that piety is that which is dear to the gods. In other words, actions that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and actions that are displeasing to them are impious. Socrates pretends to be pleased with this definition because Euthyphro seems as if he may have finally provided a model with which to measure all pious things. Euthyphro states that actions being pleasing to the gods provides a standard that should enable everyone to recognize what is pious and what is impious. Socrates reminds him that piety and impiety are not the same thing, they are opposites. The gods do not seem to agree on much of anything, let alone that which is just or good, and certainly that which is pleasing.…
In the beginning of this section of Apology of Socrates, the jurors find Socrates guilty by a 281 to 220 vote. Socrates begins his next speech by revealing that he is not grieved by this decision, and that he is surprised only by the ratio of guilty to innocent votes, thinking the majority would have been against him. He tells the audience that the proposed penalty is death, yet he does not feel that is fair in his belief that he had never wronged anyone. He believed that what he was doing was a job given to him by God, and that he was instilling, or attempting to instill, the seeking of wisdom and virtue that he thought led a man to righteousness. Socrates then lists all the possible alternatives for penalty, being a fine, imprisonment, or exile. He follows these alternatives with reasons against these, being that he has no money, does not wish to be the slave to magistrates in prison, and will only continue his practices and be exiled at each new place he travels, in that he will not cease his tongue as it would be a disobedience to God. The jurors then vote to condemn Socrates to death, and he retaliates with the stating that he would never act as they wanted him to in order to receive acquittal, and that he would rather be true to himself and die for it. He further explains that he is convinced that death cannot be evil, for the oracle did oppose him from saying any one thing during his trial, as it normally does when something Socrates is about to make an error or slip in any way. Additionally, death can be of two beneficial things, a state of nothingness and unconsciousness compared to a sound sleep, or the migration of the soul to from this world to another, in which Socrates can question and be amongst the heroes of the Greek history. Socrates finishes by asking the jury for one last favor, being that when Socrates sons grow up, he asks for them to be punished if they ever value riches or anything other than virtue, and pretend…
The most effective points Marino emphasizes is the distinctions being made in the article. Those distinctions are clarifying everything that Marino is stating about the quotes used and to back up the thesis.…
In Euthyphro, Plato juxtaposes the predicaments of Socrates and Euthyphro to delve deep into the issues of ethics and justice. On the one hand, Socrates has been indicted for corrupting the youth and ungodliness. On the other hand, Euthyphro has willingly decided to prosecute his father—the equivalent of committing blasphemy—for the crime of murdering a servant. Perplexed by Euthyphro’s decision, Socrates remarks that Euthyphro must have expert wisdom of divine law to take such actions against his own father. Subsequently, Socrates insists that Euthyphro teach him a lesson in piety; he believes that learning Euthyphro’s unquestionable knowledge of piety could help him get acquitted in his trial against Meletus. Through their interaction, Euthyphro presents Socrates with four distinct definitions of piety. Nevertheless, Socrates identifies flaws in each potential definition Euthyphro offers him.…
The current understanding of knowledge and the universe by man today stems from many centuries ago when philosophers attempted to understand the seemingly chaotic world around them. The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle are responsible for some of these major early discoveries and are a big reason as to where we are today due to their endeavors to understand various philosophical topics. In this essay, I am going to explain Plato’s views on knowledge and science, Aristotle’s views on change and science, and ultimately how although both contributed to man’s understanding of philosophy today, Aristotle started a departure from the views of Plato and into an entirely new era.…
The story of “Euthyphro” was not one that was easy for me to understand. It took me a lot of reading and re-reading to grasp the concept of what I was to actually reading. It may be Greek, but it was all Chinese to me. It is a dialogue between Socrates, who is on trial for impiety. He is being accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the Gods. He runs into his friend Euthyphro, who is prosecuting his father for impiety as well, only his father is on trial for murdering a slave that he didn’t actually murder.…