A Dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro - Essay Example

? Euthyphro Euthyphro Plato’s Euthyphro is set as a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, the sake of the play. Socrates has been called to court on account of charges pressed against him by Meletus who claims that by inventing new gods and not respecting the state recognized gods, Socrates is corrupting the youth of Athens. So begins a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro discussing mainly, the topic of holiness. Euthyphro is a dogmatic man who insists on following the set rules. He has come to court because he is pressing charges against his father on accounts of murder. Because their opinions about holiness are at odds, Socrates who is portrayed by Plato as a person who is eager to engage in discourse with the people on Athens asks Euthyphro what his concept of holiness is so he might learn from how Euthyphro defines it. Says Socrates, “Tell me then, what is the pious, and what the impious, do you say?” (5e) Initially, this is how the concept of holiness emerges in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro and it soon takes a prominent position in the dialogue as it becomes the main topic of their conversation as they wait to be shown into court for their respective cases. In response to Socrates’ question, Euthyphro provides him with three basic definitions by which he thinks holiness is defined. Every time Euthyphro gives Socrates a definition for the concept of holiness, Socrates gives him an argument to refute it and thus Euthyphro is forced to provide another definition. Finally, when Euthyphro gives the third definition and Socrates refutes it, Euthyphro storms off annoyed with Socrates for disagreeing with all his attempts to define what is holy. First, he says “I say that the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer, be it about murder or temple robbery or anything else, whether the wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else; not to prosecute is impious.” (5e) Thus holiness is defined by prosecuting those people who are blasphemous and go against religion. Second, he says “Well then, what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (7) Thus, holiness is defined by what the gods like and mutually consent. Lastly, Euthyphro tells Socrates that “I would certainly say that the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is the impious.” (9e). Therefore, piety is what lies within the bounds of actions the god’s love and those that the god’s hate, become automatically unholy. Socrates refutes Euthyphro’s definitions at each stage by providing elaborate counter arguments of his own. To Euthyphro’s first definition that holiness is punishing people who go against religion, Socrates says that this is a definition that excludes a variety of holy things that have nothing to do with persecuting blasphemous people and thus an incomplete definition that doesn’t hold on various counts. To Euthyphro’s second definition that holy things are those that are approved by the gods, Socrates says that this definition is also flawed because the gods are often fighting and there is seldom a time they all agree on one thing, thus no deed is holy according to this definition. He says “Then according to your argument, my good Euthyphro, different gods consider different things to be just, beautiful, ugly, good, and bad” (7e) and that “The same things then are loved by the gods and hated by the gods, and would be both god-loved and god-hated… And the same things would be both pious and impious, accord­ing to this argument?” (8) Euthyphro is disgruntled but has no choice but to agree with Socrates. Lastly, Socrates refutes Euthyphro’s statement by asking him to consider an important statement “Consider this: Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (10) and he asks Euthyphro to run a parallel comparison between the preceding statement and the fact that “that which is being carried is being carried because someone carries it or for some other reason” (10b) and thus, “if anything comes to be, or is affected, it does not come to be because it is coming to be, but it is coming to be because it comes to be; nor is it affected because it is being affected but because something affects it.” (10c). It follows from this line of argument that holiness is loved because it is holy and not because it is loved by the gods. Thus, refuting the previous two definitions. Through his dialogue with Euthyphro, Socrates questions his beliefs and ethics by cross questioning him at every turn. Personally, I think Socrates’ basic goal throughout this dialogue is to show that there exists no concrete definition according to which holiness is defined and thus there is no concept of piety singled out that a man has to follow to be considered holy. All holy endeavors are not similar and by extrapolation neither are all holy men. Through the course of this dialogue we see Socrates pretend like he knows nothing in front of Euthyphro who is flaunting his knowledge and modesty, but as he refutes every point that Euthyphro makes, Socrates shows us that knowledge is not valid unless the person can back it up with sufficient evidence and sound logic. Thus, Socrates teaches us that even a novice should not take the word of a person flaunting his knowledge and wisdom unless it can be substantiated. Lastly, his goal is to show that the method of cross questioning is a healthy way to reach to the bottom of whether what someone is saying is false information or actual wisdom because it reveals the loopholes in the argument presented, as in the case of Euthyphro. A definition of holiness could be a way of living that is devoted to being religious and thus a person who is holy is one who dutifully attends to whatever his religion asks of him. Such a person is devoted singularly to his god and religion. However, Socrates might reject this definition of holiness as well on the grounds of its extremism. Men by nature are not singularly devoted to one thing, as per this definition would a man who is devoted to his wife and family and also devoted to his religion and dutifully attends to what his religion and god asks of him, not be considered holy because his devotion is not singular? This definition of holiness has loopholes because it leaves out a large proportion of men who are holy on all other counts but simply not singularly devoted because on one hand they prioritize religion and on the other hand they prioritize worldly things like familial ties. References: Plato. Euthyphro. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Retrieved from: http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Plato.pdf Read More