Preview

Exegesis of Plato's Euthrypro

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
915 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Exegesis of Plato's Euthrypro
Plato’s Euthyphro begins with Socrates and Euthyphro meeting at the Hall of Kings regarding charges made against Socrates, that he is an impious man corrupting the youth of Athens. Euthrypro is at the Hall of Kings prosecuting his father, and is quick to brag to Socrates about what a pious man he himself is, for making such scandalous accusations against his own father in the name of piety. Socrates of course takes the opportunity to begin questioning Euthyphro about what it truly means to be pious, under the ruse of wanting knowledge to use in his own trial. Although the dialogue seems to be simply an argument about what piety really is, Socrates is teaching Euthyphro (Plato is teaching the reader), about the nature of definition and the importance of questioning things that may seem incredibly natural. Euthyphro’s initial attempt at defining piety is really just to reiterate his plan to prosecute his father. Socrates points out that this is not a definition at all, merely an attempt to give an example of a single pious action. Socrates explains to Euthyphro that he is not interested in examples of the word, only in the fundamental characteristic of the word in order to be capable of defining it “Bear in mind I did not bid you to tell me one or two pious actions…. Tell me then what this form itself is” (6e). The second definition offered by Euthyphro is that Piety is that which is pleasing to the Gods. In response, Socrates agrees that if this definition were a good one, that which the Gods loved would be pious and that which they hated would be deemed impious. He then points out to Euthyphro that the Gods are frequently found in a state of disagreement regarding what is pleasing and what is displeasing. Therefore, if one God loved something that another hated, that thing would be both pious and impious simultaneously “The same things then are loved by the Gods and hated by the Gods…. And the same things would be both pious and impious according to this

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In The Apology by Plato, the accusations that was brought against Socrates during his trial, that he was worshipping new gods, corrupting the young. Even after providing services to the Athens he was being executed by the Athens for influencing young men not to join the Athens. Socrates is one of the few individuals whom one could say has so-shaped the cultural and intellectual development of the world that, without him Socrates had influenced Plato to not to have a career in the political world as an Athens Socrates. Plato was a disciple of Socrates. The apology was an attempt to defend the character of Socrates by showing him in an honest and sympathetic. Plato wanted to preserve Socrates reputation, and to him as a great mentor.…

    • 127 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Meno's Paradox

    • 1703 Words
    • 5 Pages

    At Euthyphro 9e, Euthyphro claims that the pious is that which is loved by all the gods. In effect, he is claiming that the pious and the god-loved are identical. In reply to this claim, Socrates argues that “If the god-loved and the pious were the same, my dear Euthyphro, then if the pious was being loved because it was pious, the god-loved would also be being loved because it is god-loved.” Socrates is essentially arguing that if the ‘pious’ and the ‘god-loved’ are, in fact, identical, you should be able to use the terms interchangeably without changing the truth value of a particular statement.…

    • 1703 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Luke 18:9-14 has a story which exemplifies the contrast of two distinct people: the Pharisee and the tax collector. Culturally speaking and back in the time, the Pharisees were the religious leaders of the Temple. They memorized Scripture, prayed to God and fasted often (Luke 18:11 12). Jesus told the parable, and said that the Pharisees thanked God he was not like the tax collector, who were extortioners, unjust, adulterers (Luke 18:11). On the other hand, the tax collector was in such awe before God that he did not even want to look to the Heavens, for he did not think he was worth it. But then Jesus said in Luke 18:14, “ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” They were the ones people admired and thought had a relationship with God. On the other hand, there were the tax collectors. Tax collectors had the reputation of not having integrity, for they used to overcharge taxes from the people. They were known by being thieves and having no character; a reputation people did not desire to have. This contrast between the Pharisee and the tax collector shows that we cannot judge people by their appearances, because only God knows their innermost thoughts and the motives behind their actions.…

    • 650 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates rises the dilemma about what pious is and do the gods love something because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it? Socrates and Euthyphro both agree that surely the gods love the pious because it is the pious. But than Socrates argues that we are forced to reject the second option: the fact that the gods love (something) cannot explain why the pious is the pious. This is because, if both options were true, they would go in circles with the gods loving the pious because it is the pious, and the pious being the pious because the gods love it. And this in turn means, Socrates argues, that the pious is not the same as the god-beloved, because what makes the pious the pious is not what makes the god-beloved the god-beloved. After all, what makes the god-beloved the god-beloved is the fact that the gods love it, whereas what makes the pious the pious is something else. Thus Euthyphro's theory does not give us the very nature of the pious.…

    • 450 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    To better clarify his question, Socrates makes an analogy; “a thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely visible because it is seen” (15). Socrates later makes a distinction between being approved and getting approved; something is being approved because it gets approved, not the other way around. According to Euthyphro, something gets approved by the gods because it is holy and not the other way around; it is not holy because it gets approved by the gods. Furthermore, because it gets approved it is being approved, therefore it is something that is approved by the gods. Nonetheless, from this you can distinguish, that 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 is being approved of because it gets approved. If what is being approved of by the gods were the same thing as what is holy, and if what is holy gets approved because it is holy, then what is being approved of by the gods would get approved because it is being approved of, when in fact the opposite is true. On the other hand, if we accept that what is being approved of is being approved of because it gets approved, then the holy, too, would have to…

    • 516 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Philippians Lesson Plan

    • 1046 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Meaning of the word Exalt: To exalt someone means to praise of raise in rank, to give honor, to elevate, to glorify, to acknowledge. The book of Philippians teaches us that Paul did all these things during his time of affections, during a time when he himself was facing a time of pain and distress and persecution.…

    • 1046 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phi Euthyphro

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Socrates during this conversation with Euthyphro works to grasp the full understaind of this elusive concept and tries with everything he knows to use logic to understand what the meaning of holiness is, where is came from, and why it has benefits. This paper I will try to explain the concept of holiness as it emerges and identify the three different definitions of piety that Euthyphro uses to help get Socrates to understand. In addition this paper will point out what Socrates goal for this discussion was and also create an argument of my definition of holiness.…

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Euthyphro- Plato

    • 303 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In the writing called Euthyphro by Plato, Socrates is being charged with corrupting the youth and not believing in all of the Gods. He is being accused of this by a man named Meletus who feels as though he is guilty of not believing in the Gods of the states. Not only does he not believe in the Gods but he is accused of making up new ones. The crimes that he is being charged with go hand in hand with each other but he maintains his innocence because he feels he isn’t guilty. While on the other hand Euthyphro is prosecuting his father and indicting him for murder. Morally Euthyphro feels as though it’s the right thing to do and his family doesn’t agree only because it’s his father. In this essay I will summarize the dialogue and its message relating to piety/holiness.…

    • 303 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In an analysis of Plato’s Euthyphro, Peter Geach claims that Socrates commits the Socratic fallacy when he refuses Euthyphro’s first definition of piety. Socrates rejects the definition given because it does not give a formal definition of what piety is, but instead offers examples of things and actions that are pious. Geach believes that this is a substantial fallacy committed by Socrates, one that may prevent him from getting at the truth of the matter. I will first expand on Geach’s Socratic fallacy, as well as explain why this fallacy presents itself as a problem for Geach. Then I will examine Euthyphro to see if Geach is correct in assuming that Socrates commits the Socratic fallacy. In addition to Euthyphro, I will look at another one…

    • 583 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Euthyphro offers two main definitions of what he believes piety and impiety are. Euthyphros first definition consist of saying that “Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting…

    • 1219 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Euthyphro Vs Plato

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages

    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…

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Piety, says Euthyphro, is what all the gods love, and the impious is what all the gods hate. Socrates is not satisfied by this definition, either, and so he tries a different tack to extract a definition from Euthyphro. Socrates does this by asking: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” When Euthyphro seems unsure, Socrates simplifies his question with an analogy. He asks Euthyphro if something is “carried” because it is “a thing carried,” or if it is “carried” because something is carrying it. Both men agree that the action confers the state of being. That is, a thing loved is so because someone loves it, and the thing itself is not creating a state of “loving” within the people around it. Likewise, being loved is not a state inherent to the thing loved, but is the result of the love others bear for the thing. Moving from his analogy back to Euthyphro’s definition, Socrates shows the fallacy in Euthyphro’s statement. Being god-loved cannot confer piety, as it confers “god-loved-ness” instead. Therefore, in Euthyphro’s statement, all the gods loving something would make that thing universally god-loved, but in no way makes it pious. An act is loved by the gods because it is pious, and not the other way…

    • 1979 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro takes place at the marketplace. Euthyphro is on his way to charge his father for murder, and Socrates is going to his own trial, because he was accused of corrupting the minds of the youth. Before going into his trial, Socrates asks Euthyphro, who claims to be a spiritually enlightened prophet, what exactly makes something of piety or impiety. He asks this, because he wants to be seen as Euthyphro’s student, and so that he can use Euthyphro’s teachings in order to understand the difference between godliness and ungodliness, so that he can represent himself in court. As Euthyphro attempts to define it in clear and general terms, Socrates brings up different flaws and perspectives on his explanations that cause him to delve into it. As they continue to discuss it, Socrates’ questions cause Euthyphro to come full circle back to his first explanation of it, and they never come to a clear conclusion.…

    • 532 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    euthyphro

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In this essay I will explain the concept of the holiness emerges and why it takes a prominent position in the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro. I will also explain the three definitions that Euthyphro uses in his response to Socrates and then present Socrates’s refutation of each of Euthyphro definitions. Also this essay will test my ability to develop my own argument as to what I think Socrates’s goal is in this dialogue. How do you know that is his goal? What features of the dialogue align his goals? I will also give own definition of piety/holiness and then take on the role of Socrates and respond to my own definition as I think he would.…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Philia is often described as the “love for family and friends”(Moore, 1). Also seen as the non-passionate love compared to Eros (Turner 352). Philia is found in the Lysis and the New Testament. The Lysis is another play written by Plato. Socrates is asked to help a man pick a boy. Picking up a boy would be characterized under Eros, but throughout the play Socrates actually turns it into friendship. He is trying to show that friendship is actually more important than erotic love. He does this by explaining that knowledge is more important than age or sexual freedom. One must be able to connect with another for there to be a connection. While examining what friendship is with the young boys, he goes through multiple scenarios trying to flush…

    • 181 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays