Platos Dialogue - Research Paper Example

Task: Euthyphro; Plato’s Dialogue The setting of the dialogue is in the porch of Achorn where Socrates meets Euthyphro. Socrates is awaiting preliminary hearings on his suit. Meletus, a young man, accuse Socrates of corrupting the youth. Meletus claims that Socrates is a poet who comes up with new gods and does not acknowledge the already existing ones. Euthyphro agrees that the charge is a laughable one, but readily acceptable because people do not like new doctrines in religion. Specifically, Socrates is guilty because he claims he receives divine signs, which amounts to heresy. Euthyphro identifies with Socrates because people laugh at him when he predicts the future. On the other hand, Euthyphro is accusing his father of murder. His father, by neglect, had let a servant who had killed another servant die in a ditch while awaiting instruction on what to do with him. Socrates taunts Euthyphro if he has such a precise knowledge of right and wrong and if so, whether what he is doing is not a wrong. The debate shifts to the discussion about what is holly and what is unholy, Socrates wants to learn from Euthyphro. Euthyphro argues that not prosecuting offenders because they are your relatives is unholy. He proves this by reminding Socrates of the god Zeus who is said to be the most just. Zeus, he says, bound his father Cronos because he had devoured his own sons. Socrates is indeed doubtful about the tales about the gods. Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide him with a standard by which to measure things as holy or unholy. Euthyphro says that holy things are dear to gods, and unholy things are not dear to the gods. Socrates remarks that gods also argue until they fight. He also points out that such arguments can only be about right or wrong. Socrates then brings out the flaw in such a definition by leading Euthyphro to admit that something considered dear to the gods is also, on the other hand, not dear to the gods; otherwise, they would not argue and fight. They both proceed to come up with another definition of purity. That what all the gods hate is impure and what they all love is pure, but what some gods love and others hate is both pure and impure. Unexpectedly, Socrates also punches holes in this definition. He asks whether the holy become holy because the gods love them or the gods adore them due to their holiness. They then agree that which is precious to the gods is also precious to them because they love it and not the other way round. This, Socrates points out is a contradiction and continues to demand another distinction between holy and unholy. Euthyphros, at this point gives up, but Socrates continues trying to come up with a distinction. He later proves that fear does not always result to reverence but reverence results to fear, which goes against the words of a poem on Zeus. On that, Socrates proves that piety is only a part of the bigger concept of justice. Euthyphros then asserts that piety is a part of justice, which concerns the gods. The word he uses ‘attention’ leads Socrates to enquire whether it is the attention that improves something. Euthyphro then gives another definition. That piety is sacrificing and praying to the gods. He expresses the idea of doing business with the gods. Socrates also wants Euthyphro to state to what benefit the gifts to the gods are. Instead, he says they are a show of honor and esteem. Thereby he admits that piety depends on what the gods like, which they had assumed not to be the case. The discussion becomes circular, and Euthyphros abandons the dialogue. According to J. Adam, Euthyphro represents Plato’s perception on the Athenian orthodoxy that was common. Euthyphro represents the mindset that led to the murder of Socrates (Berversluis 161). Euthyphro is an example of a- know- it- all, ignorant of his ignorance. He flaunts his knowledge in matters of religion and even adopts a fatherly tone towards Socrates. He is overconfident and uncritical to the extent that he does not realize that Socrates is not taking him seriously. Rather, Socrates finds to be him amusing. Euthyphro is quite deficient for a discussion with a person of Socrates standing. Socrates encourages him to shed light on the definition of holiness, but Socrates is merely setting the stage for his inevitable failure (Berverslius 162). Berversluis also argues that Socrates has an acceptable reason for using ironic flattery to hide his real purpose of the dialogue, otherwise Euthyphro would have run (Berverslius162). According to A.E. Taylor and R. E. Allen, Euthyphro did not think that his father was guilty. Taylor thinks that the motive is to try to detach himself with the guilt of his relative’s involvement in a murder. On the other hand, another motive might be to get back to his father who did not consult him but sought advice from far. Euthyphro has no interest in learning, even after failing to define piety; he does not faulter but goes on to accuse his father (Berverslius 163). According to Benson, Socrates wants definitions because he thinks they are indispensable in determining how to live right (Benson 72). Socrates gives considerable emphasis on definitions whenever one is trying to know how to live, the principle of the priority of definition. Benson (72) says that this principle can be simply explained as to know the properties of a thing, one must first define it. That is to say that if one is to tell whether prosecuting one’s father under a certain set of given circumstances is pious, one must first strive to know what piety is. Socrates starts his search for definition by consulting, with his interlocutor, to come to a consensus that there is an issue to discuss (Benson 73). These concessions are claims about forms in the Theory of Forms; Euthyphro is not aware of the significance of such concessions. On another view, Euthyphro can be seen to be more ethically and religiously progressive than he seems. This is evident in his assertion that he has a duty to fight pollution, whether done by a stranger or a relative. This stand was not in the Athenian norms. Euthyphro thus construes his suit against his father as a demand of impartial justice (Kamtekar 1). Socrates used dialogues to write metaphorically about different issues that people would normally discuss. In Euthyphro, he uses his dialogue with a man named Euthyphro to expound on his disdain on what seems like the time’s blind discipleship to orthodoxy. Euthyphro can be said to be a religious fanatic, following the word of the law. He is overzealous to perform duties pertaining to religion, making Socrates wonder how precise his distinction of right and wrong is. Euthyphro is a man after praise; he preaches in public and thus identifies with Socrates. Socrates says he would pay for an audience. However, in ignorance, Euthyphhro’s comparison of himself with Socrates is highly inappropriate. Socrates teaches, from the nature of this dialogue, critically thought out issues. On the other hand, Euthyphro preaches things he does not know, no wonder people laugh at him. In the debate that ensues, Socrates identifies a way of approaching moral issues’ to evaluate before making a judgment. That before one brands anything holy or unholy, to know what holiness is. Socrates uses sarcasms to make Euthyphro think that he can teach him. This seems to keep Euthyphro in the dialogue until he realizes he could never teach Socrates. He poses his main question when he asks whether things are holy because they are dear to the gods, or dear to the gods because they are holy. To arrive at this question, he uses practical examples so as they can reach a consensus. When Euthyphro answers the question whether a person is said to be suffering because he is in a state of suffering or because he suffers, he is like a sheep walking to the slaughter. Socrates forces him to falsify what he had stated as the truth. In this context, Ethyphro is a representation of the dogmatic nature of the religion of ancient Athenians. To be a theologian, one supposed to know all the teaching of the religious law and believe everything without doubt. Knowledge was not enough; hence, one was required to propagate the same. Doubts about this knowledge were highly condemned and considered a crime. This is the same reason that Socrates find himself with a suit against him. Through these questions, they come up with five different definitions of piety, but none is without fault. Euthyphro agrees with each definition Socrates comes up with without being critical. Socrates knows this and goes on to pinpoint the flows in the same definition Euthyphro has accepted. By then, Euthyphro should have realized the futility of defining piety using his religious doctrines and abandon the suit against his father. Instead, he is impervious to reason. He runs and goes right ahead with the suit. This may have hinted on the imperviousness of many people at that time, their refusal to reason and change. The only way was to silence reason, and they killed Socrates. Works Cited Benson, Hugh. A Companion to Plato. London, UK: Blackwell publishing company, 2006. Print. Bervesluis, John. Cross-examining Socrates: a defense of the interlocutors in Plato's early. London, UK: Cambridge university press, 2000. Print. Kamtekar, Rachana. Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito: critrical essays. Maryland, US: Rowman & Little Publishers, 2005. Print. Read More