Euthyphro Vs Plato
Forum 2: Plato - Holiness and Deities' Approval
My initial view on Plato’s argument that what is holy and what is approved by the gods are not the same, is that this argument is convincing. I will also, show that Euthyphro would not have given any reasonable response to the argument in response to the second question and final part of the assignment, which requires if we can think of any arguments Euthyphro could have made and what his response would have been. However, before I delve fully into evaluating and buttressing my position, it is apropos to take a synoptic and retrospective incursion to the genesis of Plato’s conclusion to fully equip us with the historic origin and import of his deductions. In the course …show more content…
Socrates’s initial intension was to tap from the repertoire of the assumed and over – estimated knowledge of Euthyphro, as part of his defense. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro was based on the role of the deities and justice in the man’s actions as Euthyphro presented himself as man of great religious knowledge. Euthyphro, also referred to as learned, soothsayer and diviner, postulated his belief that the relationship between man and the deities was more of a commercial beneficial relationship.
Euthyphro's initial definition of holiness when prompted by Socrates was that what is holy is what is approved of by all the gods. Socrates countered with his argument that the two cannot be analogous. He propagated that what is holy gets approved of by the gods because it is holy. To Socrates, what is holy determines what gets approved of by the gods, and what gets approved of by the gods is an off-shot of what is approved of by the gods. Therefore, the consequences of the foregoing is that what is holy cannot be the same thing as what is approved of by the gods, since one of these two governs what gets approved of by the gods. The definition and criteria for …show more content…
My understanding is that the first refers to "the gods." And the other refers to "all the gods.
Euthyphro initially understanding was that holiness was a matter of being what the gods like, but Socrates in his usual exploratory manner, countered that often the gods are in disagreement. Based on Socrates argument, Euthyphro was forced to reposition his argument that only those things that all the gods collectively agree and approve of can count as holy. My assertion is that in holiness, there is an intrinsic quality and this quality is in the gods’ and because this quality is a requisite for holiness, approval may or may not be needed, but is required for holiness. Following Plato’s argument, therefore, what is holy is something different from what is approved of by the gods. Something holy gets approved because it is holy, and something that is being approved by the gods gets approved irrespective of the circumstance.
Plato/Socrates wants to suggest, in his argument what is holy and what is approved of by the gods do not mean the same thing and cannot be equivalent as claimed by
My initial view on Plato’s argument that what is holy and what is approved by the gods are not the same, is that this argument is convincing. I will also, show that Euthyphro would not have given any reasonable response to the argument in response to the second question and final part of the assignment, which requires if we can think of any arguments Euthyphro could have made and what his response would have been. However, before I delve fully into evaluating and buttressing my position, it is apropos to take a synoptic and retrospective incursion to the genesis of Plato’s conclusion to fully equip us with the historic origin and import of his deductions. In the course …show more content…
Socrates’s initial intension was to tap from the repertoire of the assumed and over – estimated knowledge of Euthyphro, as part of his defense. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro was based on the role of the deities and justice in the man’s actions as Euthyphro presented himself as man of great religious knowledge. Euthyphro, also referred to as learned, soothsayer and diviner, postulated his belief that the relationship between man and the deities was more of a commercial beneficial relationship.
Euthyphro's initial definition of holiness when prompted by Socrates was that what is holy is what is approved of by all the gods. Socrates countered with his argument that the two cannot be analogous. He propagated that what is holy gets approved of by the gods because it is holy. To Socrates, what is holy determines what gets approved of by the gods, and what gets approved of by the gods is an off-shot of what is approved of by the gods. Therefore, the consequences of the foregoing is that what is holy cannot be the same thing as what is approved of by the gods, since one of these two governs what gets approved of by the gods. The definition and criteria for …show more content…
My understanding is that the first refers to "the gods." And the other refers to "all the gods.
Euthyphro initially understanding was that holiness was a matter of being what the gods like, but Socrates in his usual exploratory manner, countered that often the gods are in disagreement. Based on Socrates argument, Euthyphro was forced to reposition his argument that only those things that all the gods collectively agree and approve of can count as holy. My assertion is that in holiness, there is an intrinsic quality and this quality is in the gods’ and because this quality is a requisite for holiness, approval may or may not be needed, but is required for holiness. Following Plato’s argument, therefore, what is holy is something different from what is approved of by the gods. Something holy gets approved because it is holy, and something that is being approved by the gods gets approved irrespective of the circumstance.
Plato/Socrates wants to suggest, in his argument what is holy and what is approved of by the gods do not mean the same thing and cannot be equivalent as claimed by