Both of them were having an argument where Euthyphro
Both of them were having an argument where Euthyphro
Socrates beforehand disproving Gorgias and Polus in The Gorgias, now takes on a rival who he deems qualified enough: Callicles. Here, they discuss the value of temperance and the indulgence of pleasures. Callicles remarks to Socrates, “In the rightly-developed man the passions ought not to be controlled, but that we should let them grow to the upmost and somehow or other satisfy them, and that that is virtue” (Plato 74). Callicles says that to allow growth and indulge in your desires is real virtue. A man who is slave of his own restraint cannot be happy. According to him, satisfying longings is natural and even noble, but because the weaker cannot attain this and are ashamed of their own weakness, they reprimand intemperance and instead praise…
This reading is so confusing, I read it three times and still have some confusion about the Socrates statements. Basically, it is a conversation or arguments between Socrates and Euthyphro. Socrates is in the court because a man whose name is Meletus prosecuted him about corrupting the youth. Therefore, Euthyphro is in the court to prosecute his father for the murder of the servant. It is not proven that his father is killer but Euthyphro is trying to get justice on behalf of the servant. Euthyphro thinks that a person has to pay if he/she does something impiety. Euthyphro explains that piety is something the dear to god and impiety is the thing that you do and god does not like. Euthyphro is trying to explain Socrates that he has knowledge…
I agree with what your saying, I think Socrates understood what everything he was asking Euthyphro about the gods and what they believed in and didn't believe in. When Euthyphro told him that somethings are right by god and wrong by other gods which makes action that people were doing maybe holy/sinful. Socrates wanted to make Euthyphro stop moving fast and slow down and actually think about what he was saying because turning in his father maybe both wrong/right by the gods he was just making his self believe it was the right…
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.…
This discussion wraps around the reason Socrates is on trial and his standing on piety in which he wishes not to follow. When speaking to Euthyphro, Socrates uses this moment to help himself understand what the meaning of piety is to himself and emits to Euthyphro that he does not know.…
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?…
Euthyphro is one of Plato’s early dialogues that portrays the discussion of piety between Euthyphro, a man on his way to prosecute his father for murder, and Socrates. When pressed to explain why Euthyphro would prosecute his own father, he states that it is the pious thing to do, from which Socrates takes to mean that Euthyphro knows just what piety is (4D – 5D). Euthyphro’s first definition of piety is that of an example, that is, his own example of prosecuting a wrongdoer, regardless of that person’s relations to you (5E). Socrates finds this definition insufficient to explain what piety is; Euthyphro has only described what he is doing at this moment (6D), which is of course, not a formal definition of piety. Socrates asks not for one or two examples of pious actions but “what this form [piety] itself is” in order to use that as a model to judge other action’s piety (6E). In regards to this first definition of piety that Euthyphro gives, it seems that Socrates has committed the Socratic fallacy. He has assumed that if Euthyphro knows what piety is, he ought to be able to articulate it through a formal definition, additionally, Socrates has assumed that Euthyphro’s example does not demonstrate any knowledge of piety and therefore chooses not to even consider…
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of piety in Euthyphro. Euthyphro says that the pious is the same thing as what is loved by the gods, but Socrates finds a problem with this: the gods may disagree among themselves. Euthyphro then revises his answer, so that piety is only what is loved by all the gods unanimously.…
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…
that goes by Meletos, who had plans of indicting the philosopher following the claim that he’d been corrupting the youth.…
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between ¡§Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen¡¨ and ¡§Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society,¡¨ will help to position Plato¡¦s Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.…
In the writing called Euthyphro by Plato, Socrates is being charged with corrupting the youth and not believing in all of the Gods. He is being accused of this by a man named Meletus who feels as though he is guilty of not believing in the Gods of the states. Not only does he not believe in the Gods but he is accused of making up new ones. The crimes that he is being charged with go hand in hand with each other but he maintains his innocence because he feels he isn’t guilty. While on the other hand Euthyphro is prosecuting his father and indicting him for murder. Morally Euthyphro feels as though it’s the right thing to do and his family doesn’t agree only because it’s his father. In this essay I will summarize the dialogue and its message relating to piety/holiness.…
The conversation between Socrates and Alcibiades continues with them talking about how the soul is separate from the body. There is nothing that has more authority than the soul within the body. Socrates then states that people who know their parts of the body know what belongs the them, but not themselves. This means that their body parts are for their bodies, but they body parts do not belong to the soul. Again. Socrates brings up that people who tend to their bodies tend to what belongs to them rather than what belongs to themselves. This helps Socrates bring up the point that the person who loves the body is someone who who loved something that belonged to the body, but Socrates is the one who loves Alcibiades’ soul and not his body. Love is loving another person’s soul as long as they are making progress. The person who loves Alcibiades soul will not leave him unlike the people who love the body. Socrates will love him unless he became corrupt and ugly. The body changes and the soul continues to grow. Socrates points out that he is…