Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried. Similarly, there is a difference between something being in the state of being loved because it is loved and something being loved
And yet again, Socrates is able to react to this quote by causing Euthyphro to question his statement by replying, “And to give correctly is to give them what they need from [e] us, for it would not be skillful to bring gifts to anyone that are in no way needed.” (p.19). Through this reiteration of Euthyphro’s statement regarding gifting the gods, Socrates is able subtly hinting that a true, “good” entity should not require to be gifted from a being of a lower status and instead should help others as it is in their “good” nature. For God wants to help humans for the sake of working
Socrates as a wise man understands that if religion forms humans’ personality and views on surrounding, then it means that there is no place for you as a human being. Thus, Socrates tries to argue with Euthyphro to find the definition of goodness and asks Euthyphro questions. Euthyphro gives several definitions of goodness such as prosecuting his own father is an act of goodness, but Socrates quickly responses to him that it is only instance but not the definition. Then, he replies to Socrates that goodness is something that is pleasant to gods. However, Socrates is not satisfied with such definition and responses to Euthyphro that many of conflicts exist among the gods and what is pleasant to one god might be unpleasant to another.
But you won’t be willing”. He said his definition and was sure that it was right. He also considered that Socrates was a liar and doesn’t know what he’s talking about because in earlier discussions Socrates didn’t give a suitable answer of the definition of justice, he just asked questions that were a bit mystery, and that was his way to prove
Plato’s The Republic 1)Why, and how successfully, does Thrasymachus contend that rulers cannot make mistakes? In a dispute with Socrates, Thrasymachus states that the ruler is incapable of making mistakes. He insists that if the man is a master of their craft, if this does really know what they are doing, they will not do anything wrong. According to philosopher, the reasons why one makes mistakes is that they lack certain knowledge or experience. That is why they are not skillful enough to perform duties properly.
Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher, when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. It seems like Euthyphro is not thinking along the right line at all. Let’s take into account the Divine command theory, which says that the moral action is the one of God says is moral and if God prohibits it then it’s not moral. This theory is widely held to be refuted by Euthyphro argument. Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.
According to the lecture, piety is a term that refers to what it means to be good or holy in the eyes of the gods. In the reading, Euthyphro gives several different definitions of the term piety. The definition that stood out to me the most was the one in which Euthyrphro says, “…what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (Euthyphro, 8). This seems like a simple definition. However, Socrates objects this definition on the grounds that the gods disagree among themselves as to what is 'pleasing'.
However he can't say this specifically towards the people because he wants to open his speech with affability. He wants the people to know he's with them, and that they should trust him. If Anthony wanted his 2nd line in his speech the way he meant it then the people would have not lend him their ears. The purpose of this syntax was to spellbound the listeners, and gain their trust. This appeals to their emotions, pathos.
I believe that Socrates was a man who looked beyond the physical world and strived to gain as much knowledge as he could through asking questions and continuing to learn from others and in turn teach others, thus making him wise and striving to live the best life. Socrates was confident, but not arrogant. He had reason to believe that he was truly the wisest, as he could not find one example to disprove the Delphi’s claim that “no one is wiser” than Socrates. (Apology 21a). Socrates wanted to assure that this claim was true before presenting this idea to others so that he did not come off as arrogant.