When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F. Socrate’s first expresses his belief that piety is able to be expressed in simple terms towards the beginning of Euthyphro. He asks the question (to which Euthyphro agrees), “is the pious not the same and alike in every action…and …show more content…
What it did succeed in was claiming that piety affects things to have “the quality of being loved by all the gods” (Euth. 11a). While this does help paint a picture of piety, describing one aspect or consequence that piety has on things, it does not accomplish the task of actually showing us how or why the thing became pious in the first place. This affect comes after the formation of piety, and for the One Form Requirement to be fulfilled it is required to find something that comes prior to
“Remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you…” (The Holy Bible NIV). Plato and Thrasymachus have polar opposite philosophies about morals and justice. Both philosophers deliberated heavily about how individuals should ethically and morally behave. Adopting a moral code achieves harmony in one’s soul and secures over all well-being.
He establishes that “the pious is what all the gods love”. Socrates immediately asks a clarifying question, asking whether the gods love pious acts because they are pious or if it because since the gods love these actions it makes them pious. Euthyphro choses to say that the gods love pious acts because they are pious, which was a mistake in his thought process. Euthyphro committed the begging the question fallacy. Socrates shows that although Euthyphro is deemed an expert in this field, he does know understand piety at all. He has brought the conversation to the beginning by saying that pious acts are pious because they are pious, which is not an explanation. It is redundant in thinking, which is what Socrates wanted to avoid. At the end when Socrates tries to further push Euthyphro’s thinking, Euthyphro merely gives up and avoids Socrates altogether. Plato again illustrates the importance of applying rational thought when one ventures to find the truth. Euthyphro did not ask himself insightful and challenging questions to further push his idea towards the truth. Had he use rational standards, he would developed his idea in a much clearer
Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic. In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by using a personal character.
Socrates is extremely particular in his standards for a proper definition and believed that a proper definition of virtue should “provide paradigms or standards for deciding whether actions or persons are virtuous” that work in all possible scenarios. The main problem with Meno’s definitions is that Socrates is not concerned with “the meaning of ‘virtue’ which would apply to the virtue or excellence of men…but, with the nature of human virtue.” One who is capable of giving a good definition of virtue would be considered a moral
During the dialogue, Euthyphro defines, “Piety means prosecuting the unjust individual who has committed murder or sacrilege, or any other such crime, as I am doing now, whether he is your father or mother or whoever he is.” Given this Euthyphro overarching principles can be summarized as divine law requires to prosecute the offender no matter who she or he is. Also, the ideology should be what befits humans as well. Socrates is fine with how Euthyphro accounts the factual evidence of his father’s misguided acts. What Socrates takes problem is how Euthyphro uses greek mythology to highlight that taking action against your parents is the correct direction of action. Due to the fact that mythology isn’t confirmed to be true in any sense, socrates feels as though this is extremely inappropriate. Euthyphro actions should be based on divine law with results in him being impious. Socrates ultimate principles can be summarized as respect for parents should be the ultimate law combined with whatever does not befit the gods shouldn’t befit everyone else. Insert another
Meno is very surprised at Socrates’s answer, therefore he decides to explain the definition to Socrates. On his first attempt, Meno gives a list of all the virtues that men and women have. Socrates points out that it is just a list of various virtue but it does not define what virtue is. He makes reference of Meno’s information is like a swarm of bees. There may be different types of bee but we do not know the essence that makes them a bee. On Meno’s second attempt, he defines virtue as the power to rule over people. Socrates asks Meno to add “justly” in the phrase “to rule over people.” He then asks Meno if justice is virtue or a virtue. The example here is that roundness is a shape but not shape itself. There are many other shapes. Same concept applies to virtue. Justice is a virtue but there are many other virtues. Meno does not give up, he attempts to explain the third time. This time, he says that virtue is to desire beautiful things and power to have them. Those beautiful things are wealth, health and fame. Once again, Meno’s answer is just a composite of many things put together. It does not give the definition. Meno asks Socrates to answer
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault...
Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, Plato raised a challenge by merely asking, “Is it right because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s right?” Nowadays, this simple yet complex question poses a problem to modern day Christians. When understanding this question, you are forced to believe you only have one of two choices to accept. Those being either it is right because God commands it or God commands it because it is right. If it is right because God commands it then anything, specifically evil, could be right. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right then the standard of goodness is no longer. Both options are hostile to Christianity. However, after further investigation, there is a third option: God’s very nature is the standard of goodness. By closely examining Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, it’s clear that a theist should undoubtedly accept the third option, being that of God’s nature is the standard of goodness.
question. The Euthyphro has Socrates and Euthyphro discussing what piety is. In an attempt to give an answer to this question, Euthyphro states that what he is doing now namely, prosecuting his own father for murder is pious (5E). Socrates rejects this as an answer saying that he wishes to know “what this form [piety] is” (6E). In essence, what Socrates is looking for here, is a formal definition. In his paper, Geach claims that this is a grave mistake on Socrates part. In his search for knowledge of piety, Socrates has made the errors that Geach enumerates
Socrates attempts to make other people reason well and therefore be virtuous by performing their human function; I believe that this action inwardly reflects Socrates’s own virtue. For example, if a professor can effectively teach mathematics to his students, then he most likely holds knowledge of the subject within himself. In a similar way, Socrates instills virtue in other people, which shows that he himself is a virtuous being. Although some people criticize him, evidence of his positive impact is reinforced by the approval and support of his friends in the Apology. While promoting virtue when alive, Socrates wishes to continue to encourage virtue even after death. For example, at the onset of his death, Socrates asks the jurors to ensure that his sons are given grief if they care for anything else more than virtue (Plato and Grube 44). While Socrates could have been thinking about himself or other things at that moment, he is thinking of how to guide people towards living virtuously. Both his actions while living and his intentions after death reveal that Socrates wished to aid people in living virtuous lives, which highlight his own state of
Keeping true to Socratic/Platonic methodology, questions are raised in the Euthyphro by conversation; specifically “What is holiness?” After some useless deliberation, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro ends inconclusively. Euthyphro varying definitions of piety include “What I do is pious to the gods,” and, “What is pleasing to the gods is pious.” Socrates proves these definitions to be insufficient, which leads us to the Apology.
Justice and morality can be viewed hand in hand as justice is based off a foundation of moral beliefs involving ethics, fairness and the law. The nature of justice and morality and how they are related has been debated heavily throughout philosophical history. When analyzing Nietzsche’s work On the Genealogy of Morals, and Thrasymachus in Plato’s, Republic it is evident that they have similarities and differences when one compares their individual accounts on the nature and genesis of justice and morality. Such similarities are their views on the nature of society and humans are naturally unequal. In addition, both philosophers agree with the statement that there can be no common good amongst society and that all moral values are socially created. On the other hand, although Nietzsche and Thrasymachus have these resemblances between their accounts, they each have unique personal differences which set them apart from each other.
Plato rejects the contractarian reconciliation of morality with individual rationality primarily because the thinks that the contractarian conception assumes that a person's motives for being just are necessarily based her self-interest, while our concept of the just person holds that to be truly just one must value justice for its own sake. The contractarian account is also unacceptable because it has no foorce in the case of the Lydia Shepherd.(3) Finally, Plato holds that we must reject the contractarian account because a better account is available to us, viz., his own account of justice. But to show this Plato must establish each of the following: 1. There really is a difference between perceived self-interest and actual self-interest, that there can be a difference between what one believes to be in one's interest and what really is in one's interest. 2. Provide an account of what one's actual self-interest is.(4) 3.
In the first part (Meno, 78-79, 86c-87c), because Socrates does not know what virtue is and Meno cannot answer it, Socrates says “we would not investigate whether virtue is teachable or not before we investigated what virtue itself is”. What Socrates means here is that, as both of them do not know what virtue is, Socrates uses the same logic as geometers do, when they are asked questions that they do not know, they will make an assumption to answer the questions. Socrates proposes a hypothesis “Among the things existing in the soul, of what sort is virtue, that it should be teachable or not”. Later, Socrates argues “men cannot be taught anything but knowledge?” Which means knowledge comes from teaching.
The interesting dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro demonstrates this Socratic method of questioning in order to gain a succinct definition of a particular idea, such as piety. Though the two men do not come to a conclusion about the topic in the conversation seen in Euthyphro, they do discover that piety is a form of justice, which is more of a definition than their previous one. Their conversation also helps the reader to decipher what makes a good definition. Whenever Euthyphro attempts to define piety, Socrates seems to have some argument against the idea. Each definition offered, therefore, becomes more succinct and comes closer to the actual concept of piety, rather than just giving an example or characteristic of it. To be able to distinguish between a good definition and a bad one is the first step to defining what Socrates so desperately wished to define: w...