Philosophical Dialogue with Euthyphro - Essay Example

The responsibility of employing a pious or religiously legal deed fell on him after the Athenian spiritual interpreters failed to confer with his father in time to settle legal matters concerning the person at fault. Socrates, on the other hand, acknowledges in truth that a man who is capable of prosecution ought to specialize in affirming what “piety” is.

Out of this situation, hence, emerges the issue of defining ‘piety’ or ‘holiness’ in which Socrates takes advantage of his humble condition, being accused of ‘impiety’, to find a resolution to the question of piety through his philosophical dialogue with Euthyphro. In his initial attempt to address the inquiry of Socrates, Euthyphro claims “Piety is doing what I’m doing now” about his provision of charges against his father which is based upon the traditional justice known in Greek mythology, as when gods do not let their fathers go unpunished despite the strength of kinship.

Thus, since Uranus received punishment from Cronos in the same manner that Cronos availed of no impunity from Zeus, Euthyphro’s father is subject to reap the harsh consequences of his action through the son who judges it as immoral by nature. Socrates, nevertheless, refutes this stating “That may be an example of piety, perhaps, but it’s not a definition” as though to imply that one such illustration may not serve alone to constitute the meaning of piety. Moreover, Euthyphro proceeds to argue “Piety or holiness, Socrates, appears to me to be that part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men.

” To Socrates, this argument sounds almost satisfactory yet he requires that Euthyphro be more specific about his view of ‘attention’ on the ground that its application to the gods and its application to men or other things may not be understood in the same light. He further exemplifies the art of attending to horses in this regard and points out that “horses are said to require attention, and not every person can attend to them, but only a person skilled in horsemanship” to which Euthyphro readily agrees (Gutchess, 2003).

Similarly, it fits a huntsman to attend to dogs as it fits ox-herd to attend to oxen so that Socrates manages to infer herein that the other man could be supposing piety or holiness to be the art of attending to the gods by definition whenever one conducts himself to be holy or good. At this stage, Euthyphro expresses disagreement and corrects the use of the term by substituting ‘ministration’ for ‘attention’. Considering another aspect of defining holiness, Euthyphro proposes “Holiness is what is agreeable to the gods” yet only to be opposed by Socrates as the latter counters “But, as the stories say, the gods don’t always agree among themselves” after which the former revises the statement with “Holiness is serving the gods … specifically, serving them with prayer and sacrifices.

” Apparently, to this extent, Socrates observes that Euthyphro returns to his inadequate position on piety where it is not sufficient to define holiness by merely doing what gods approve of as in pleasing or offering sacrifices to them though such may be taken to be valid description. As a consequence of several instances that Euthyphro finds himself caught in circles of a personal argument that could not seem to converge toward a definitive point of establishing the meaning of holiness even while Socrates seeks to guide the endeavor, he walks out of the conversation with a sense of impatience and frustration.

We all know that Socrates is widely recognized for the philosophy of teaching by way of rationalizing within a systematic doubt process to bring out the utter essence of truth in the subject of the query. When he was able to determine the man’s wisdom in him along with its expanse, it was when he equivalently realized that he is wise only because he is first ignorant to that degree. No wonder why in his dialogue with Euthyphro, his goal had been to evaluate how accurate and sincere to truth would an argument on identifying piety be if it were to possess a solid definition that transcends time and unifies differing perspectives into a natural agreement derived from having justified that the term and its substance under various circumstances.

This is primarily the reason that Socrates had kept on the intellectual effort of asking and doubting the propositions of Euthyphro based on which, I think ‘piety’, as in the plain denotation we commonly know of, still pertains to the ‘quality or state of being religious and dutiful’. However, since there are a couple of ways by which to exhibit piousness of character, then, being religious or acting to respond to the call of duty entails not just the sole deed of righteousness in its strict sense or form.

The virtues of compassion and forgiveness may have gone beyond the culture and severe attitude of Greek religion in dealing with sinners, but in my examination on account of the Socratic principle, these are essentially valuable traits of holiness as well as they reflect the duty of discerning the good in men and the hope that man’s weakness can be guided on the path of piety to yield reparation.