Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of philosophy in our daily life
The role of philosophy in our daily life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of philosophy in our daily life
In the day by day life we live, we take things for how they are without questioning them. These “normal” things in our lives are rarely question because either they have been the way they are for so long or they aren 't worth the time and effort to evaluate. The very few that question these norms on the other hand have a philosophical attitude that is worth examining. To begin the process of deconstructing a day by day object or idea you first have to detach yourself from common and uncommon viewpoints. In Socrates encounter with Euthyphro, Socrates detaches himself from his personal viewpoint of the situation in an odd way. He tells Euthyphro that if he(Euthyphro) can give him adequate proof of this(that prosecuting Euthyphro’s own father is the right thing to do), he shall never cease to extol his wisdom (Euthyphro 10b). By socrates encouraging Euthyphro and wanting to know the actual truth behind his reasoning, he detaches himself from a viewpoint and sees the bigger picture. Although he is mocking Euthyphro in a way, the concept of detachment is still there. But to act in this philosophical way is somewhat easy when there is no …show more content…
Keeping his own biases and ideas back and letting the other person tell their side lets him comprehend the whole picture. In Euthyphro, Socrates asks many questions to Euthyphro, Is it being loved then because it is pious, but it is not pious because it is being loved?(Euthyphro 12d) But what kind of care of the gods would piety be?(Euthyphro 16d). The constant repetition of questions and confirmation in Euthyphro’s reasoning is what helps Socrates, in the end, prove Euthyphro wrong. As Socrates conversation get deeper and deeper, questions and answers tend to get off track, he starts nitpicking every detail that the big picture is often forgotten, so as man living with a philosophical attitude, he must clarify what he wants to
Before getting into the principles of Socrates, it is important to have some context on these two stories to understand how each of these exemplify philosophical understanding. “Euthyphro” is a dialogue between Socrates and
Socrates insistence on finding the truly wise people pitches him against Euthyphro and Meletus. Euthyphro is religious by all means necessary. He even makes prophecies and has a firm claim on the fact that he is wise. He brings a murder charge against his father. On the other hand, Meletus is the man responsible fro bringing charges against Socrates with an aim of having him executed. Meletus, having been cross-examined by Socrates, is put to utmost shame for his lack of a firm grip on facts that are required of him (Desjardins 33). When questioning Euthyphro, Socrates makes an effort to truly find out from this religious man what holiness is. After engaging him for a while, Euthyphro is frustrated and leaves the conversation an angry man. This way of throwing doubt on someone’s beliefs is what Socrates’ signature way of argument became.
Consequently, In Plato's Euthyphro, our acquaintance with Socrates is immensely beneficial to society, as we obtain awareness on such an innovative method of achieving intuition. The Socratic approach is now a fundamental approach implemented in daily conversation in society Furthermore, not only is Socrates is able to verify that the true seekers are the wise; he also validates the notion that the answers to many questions are merely questions. Simply because, life is so debate that certain subjects begin to intertwine. To sum up, Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this Socratic irony, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
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
In the book the Republic, by Plato, revised by G.M.A. Grube, an argument is made over what Justice is. How is justice defined? Can it be defined? What incentivizes one to be a just person? The group, specifically Socrates and Thrasymachus have concluded that Justice must be defined and proven worthwhile. The argument lies within this task as Thrasymachus hastily makes the bold claim that what society knows as “just” is simply not desirable. He states that Justice is actually the advantage of the stronger and claims that injustice is a virtue. Socrates and Euthyphro have a similar argument where “Holy” acts are attempted to be defined and the controversy alludes to that of being “Just”. Euthyphro claims that it is a holy act to prosecute those
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
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.
The story that is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro proposes a dilemma that has since been a very controversial subject. When Socrates encounters Euthyphyo, he is on his way to trail to face charges against his own father. His father had been accused o...
... dispel opinions that he thought would be beneficial for those he would engaged in dialectic elenchus rather than teach them the truth, which he figured those who were capable of understand could learn themselves . In order to discover the true meaning behind Socrates’ dialog in Phaedo, inconstancies within his argument must be examined.
Socrates challenges Protagoras if virtue is really something that can be taught and he continues to argue with Protagoras because he simply wants to understand the truth about virtue. He knows that Protagoras has the reputation as being the best and he wants to know the answer. Socrates wants to know if all parts of virtue are separate and distinct or all one and the same. As the argument progresses Protagoras does not give Socrates clear answers to his questions, and the conversation is not going where Socrates wished it would. Socrates continued to ask Protagoras questions, that was until Protagoras could no longer answer the questions, he gave up and realized that in the argument he turned into the answerer. This is probably due to the fact that Socrates wanted the answers, and who else go to for those answers than
What God commanded to do what is really good, or is considered to be good simply because it is God's will that its mandate is considered to be good?
In the article, “ Introduction to Socratic Ethics”, Russo discusses how Socrates emerged as a renowned philosopher and the ethical position that Socrates establishes as a philosopher. To begin with, Socrates devoted his life to “act as a kind of “gadfly”; throughout Athens, Socrates questioned and provoked people “into recognizing their moral ignorance”(Russo 1). Socrates believed he was the wisest man in the world because he understood how ignorant he was. To implement his standpoint in ethics, and draw out ignorance from other people, Socrates used a method of argument called “elenchus” or examination. Socrates examined people for the purpose of showing “how little they actually know” about their own expertise (Russo 2).
Socrates is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and has managed to maintain relevance throughout the centuries. The experience that most individuals have with Socrates is through the works of Plato, who largely relies on Socrates as a character to elaborate a greater concept. Throughout the works of Plato, Socrates is seen denying having knowledge of anything and eventually the character explaining a concept reaching a new conclusion through the explanation. In a nutshell, that is the Socratic method. The Socratic method is consistent with Socrates asking an initial question and then asking for deeper interpretations of whatever response the initial question entails. Many individuals can find themselves intimidated by Socrates and
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...
Whether stemming from anti-feudal past, an abundance of natural resources, or the good fortune of being straddled by two oceans, the government formed and maintained by the people is qualitatively and quantitatively superior to any other nation in the world. Americans value a system based on self-reliance and a level playing field. It is this characteristic specifically that has helped place the United States on top in industry and technological advances. A can do attitude that is envied by other nations, the United States responsible for the most transformational advances in technology the world has witnessed. These advances in technology have largely powered the economic engine of the world economy. That said, what may be called exceptionalism by some could be interpreted as hubris by others. Americans solve problems, are innovative, and have a difficult time admitting defeat. It is this characteristic in particular that must be recognized and carefully examined in order to avoid inserting itself into areas where no suitable solution is likely. Considering recent events, the administration’s efforts to find common ground with Iran and its nuclear weapons program may provide such an example. The United States may sometimes view itself as the world’s mediator and, a problem solver, and by doing so with hubris, may enter into areas beyond its control endangering national security interests. Iran, under its current administration, should never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon. American hubris, in this instance, will certainly lead to an increasingly dangerous situation for both the United States and its partner nations in the