During his discussion with Socrates, Euthyphro agrees with much of Socrates reasoning. One of these many concessions is that “the gods love the pious act because it is pious”. This concession ultimately leads to Socrates defeating Euthyphro’s claim. Therefore, Euthyphro should have answered slightly different than just a defeated “yes”. However, because of Euthyphro’s definition of the pious, equating the pious to the god loved, the statement is circular in understanding, but it remains a true statement. It would be wrong to refute the statement that the god loves the god loved acts because they are god loved. Therefore, Euthyphro must not deny the claim, but rather challenge the relevance the claim has on testing the definition of pious acts …show more content…
The god loved act is the same as the pious act. This is given in the form of Euthyphro’s definition of a pious act, and therefore, can be thought of as an equal to each other. The god loved = the pious. Since these two are equal this notion of a one-way causation is illogical. It would be as if to imply that an act is intolerable because it is unbearable. Such a causation cannot happen; there must be an underlining cause for the characteristics to hold. Therefore, Euthyphro should have pushed these claims in further questioning of Socrates. The two …show more content…
In other words, what specific characteristics of the pious/god-loved acts specifically makes the act pious/god-loved. The answer to this should be that the reason the act is pious will differ on a case to case basis such as they do to individual humans. One doesn’t love everything that they love for the same reason. Someone may love the beach because they find it beautiful and love their brother because of the connection that has been fostered between the two. This answer will not satisfy Socrates, promoting further questions of the underlying cause of the love. At this point the best underlying cause of love would be some sort of perceived value that exists between the object that is loved and the entity loving the object. In the previous example of the beach and the brother, there exist some sort of perceived value that the individual has for each. The individual perceives there is value in the beauty of the beach and therefore describes that perceived value as love. The same logic can be applied to the brother; the individual perceives some sort of value in the relationship fostered between the individual and the individuals brother that is described as
Not completely satisfied by Euthyphro’s definition that, “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods”, Socrates pointed out that gods were known to disagree and argue; therefore, they may not have had unified opinion on what is holy. To further frustrate Euthyphro, Socrates continued his argument by asking the following question, “Holy is beloved by the gods because it’s
Another charge for Socrates is "Something of this sort: - That Socrates is a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state and has other new divinities of his own. That is the sort of charge, and now let us examine the particular counts." Socrates refuted from the words of Maretus. He reminded Maretus of the fact that the so-called unbelieving accusations were only applicable to Anaxacola, and that it was absurd to say that a man who believed in a tragic god did not believe in God.
HUM2225 Dr. Hotchkiss September 30, 2016 Moral Insight Plato’s Euthyphro is based on a lesson between Socrates and Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court about the definition of pious or impious. Euthyphro was surprised to see Socrates there and even more curious to find out why he was there. Socrates explained that the court was persecuting him for impiety because Meletus was spreading rumors about him corrupting the Athenian youth. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that he was there to prosecute his father for murdering a farm worker named Dionysus.
The discourse of Socrates and Euthyphro In Euthyphro, Plato recites a conversation Socrates has with Euthyphro by “the Porch of the King” (Plato, 41). The Greek philosopher and his religious interlocutor Euthyphro mainly talk about the true meaning of piety, although it is less of a conversation and more of Socrates challenging Euthyphro, after the latter claimed that he knew everything about religious matters, and therefore piety. Socrates explains his need for Euthyphro to teach him by explaining that this would help him defend himself against the “indictment” he faces because of Meletus (Plato, 45).
As a conceptual object, there is no real physical form for love. You can’t touch or sense love directly, but you may feel it through an indicator or cognition. Before we have an acute definition for love, intelligent philosophers, thinker, and writers have separate explanations on love itself based on different situations. Socrates, one of the significant philosophers who emphasizes rationalism, uses deductive reasoning to explain that the telos of love is one’s desire. The purpose of loving is to produce good or beauty, the ideal objects that highly promote one’s morality.
When considering how a person should act in order to gain the most honor or respect, there are varying opinions. Some may say that you simply must be a good person, but how does one constitute what a good person looks like? The Greek word arete represents what the ideal person in Greek society was. Sometimes arete is loosely translated to mean virtue, however this can be misconstrued in the English language. “Virtue, at least in modern english, is almost entirely a moral word; arete on the other hand is used indifferently in all the categories and means simply ‘excellence’”
Socrates suggests that if Euthyphro had answered a specific question about the essence of piety, he would have provided adequate instruction. The exact content of the question is not stated, but it would have aimed to reveal a deeper understanding of
Euthyphro tries to explain him that he was doing the same as Zeus did to his father and therefore being pious. But Socrates argues that it is just an example and not an explanation. He tries again and says what gods like is pious and what they dislike is not. But Socrates points out the fallacy in that argument that one god might not agree with another to which he replies in his third attempt what all gods like is pious and what they all hate is impious. Here, in this example we can see that how he searches for a concrete and complete definition for being pious.
Rachel Kim PHIL 100 Professor Thibodeau November 10, 2016 The Euthyphro Dilemma The Euthyphro Dilemma is the questioning of the relation between God and righteous actions. Option A is that the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious. Option B is that the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods.
Socrates raises several questions regarding Euthyphros’ assertion that what is important and sacred to the gods is “good,” and what is not important and sacred to the gods is “bad.” The quote “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious,” represents Euthyphros’ opinion regarding what is sentimental and important to the gods is religious and worthy, however what is wrong and sinful is not religious. Socrates asks Euthyphros what would happen if the gods were in conflict, and have differing opinions of what is “good” and what is “bad.” If this were to happen, Socrates wonders, which god would be correct, and which god would determine the final judgment on what is “good” and what is “bad.”
Kronos overthrew his father and then Zeus overthrew his own for eating his sons. Kronos thought rebelling against his father was an honorable deed at the time, but didn’t feel that way when Zeus reciprocated his action. The way that Euthyphro justifies his own sense of morality is by saying that he is putting his father to justice as the gods did theirs. So what if the Gods themselves aren’t the standard of morality, but humans standard of morality. This is what Euthyphro himself is doing.
At the same moment, Socrates praised Euthyphro and suggested that he must be great expert in religious matters as he was prosecuting his own father on such a doubtful charge. The conversation progressed and Socrates started asking a lot of probing questions to produce a contradiction
Is Euthyphro pious in prosecuting his father? According to the Euthyphro, the main characters like Socrates and Euthyphro have their own notions about piety. The way the main characters understand piety is different from each other. The first, Euthyphro examines himself and brings evidence against his father.
Another thing Socrates is famous for is his twisting of nature in a paradoxical way to serve his own desire to persuade: to Socrates, virtue, wisdom, and eudaemonia are directly linked, a recurring idea in many of his dialogues. His definition of happiness and morality is far different from anyone else’s, especially from Callicles’ and Nietzsche who believes that the law of nature takes over (also perceived this way by Nietzsche). E.R. Dodds mentions the idea that Nietzsche finds a reflexion of himself in Callicles, ascetic Socrates’ most interesting interlocutor in the “Gorgias”. Interesting in the fact that Callicles appears to be a purely hedonistic personage, whose definition of a good life is one where all pleasures of the body are maximised,
Socrates has been accused of impiety and he encounters Euthyphro outside the Porch of King Archon, where Euthyphro has come to prosecute his own father for murder (Plato, Euthyphro 2a). Euthyphro claims to have a strong knowledge of holiness so Socrates tries to become Euthyphro’s pupil before his own trial against Meletus (Plato, Euthyphro 4e-5a). Euthyphro’s initial argument is that, “holiness is doing what I am doing now, prosecuting the wrongdoer who commits murder or steals from the temples” and unholiness is the opposite (Plato, Euthyphro 5d). When Socrates asks for a clearer definition Euthyphro states that holiness, “what is dear to the gods is holy” (Plato, Euthyphro