Essentialists apply labels to things because they possess certain essential qualities that make them what they are. The conventionalist view is that how we regard things determines what they are. Consider this question, for instance: Are works of art in museums because they are works of art, or do we call them "works of art" because they are in museums? Essentialists assert the first position, conventionalists the second.
Although Socrates generally gets the better of Euthyphro, some of what Euthyphro says makes a certain amount of sense. For instance, when asked what human beings can give the gods, he replies that we give them honor, reverence, and gratitude. Some philosophers argue that this is a pretty good answer. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data.
Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Share Flipboard Email. Emrys Westacott. Professor of Philosophy. Emrys Westacott is a professor of philosophy at Alfred University. He is the author or co-author of several books, including "Thinking Through Philosophy: An Introduction.
Updated February 10, Featured Video. Cite this Article Format. Westacott, Emrys. Summary and Analysis of Plato's 'Euthyphro'. Plato and Aristotle on the Family: Selected Quotes. Summary and Analysis of Meno by Plato. Timeline of Greek and Roman Philosophers. Socrates ' Objection: According to Euthyphro, the gods sometimes disagree among themselves about questions of justice.
So some things are loved by some gods and hated by others. What do you mean by pious? If someone is deeply religious and visibly follows all the moral and ethical codes of his religion, he is pious. Don't become a priest if you're not prepared to live a pious life.
Pious comes from the Latin pius, which means dutiful. It doesn't always have to be used to talk about organized religion.
What is the main point of euthyphro? Euthyphro suggests that what is holy is what is agreeable to the gods, in response to which Socrates points out that the gods often quarrel, so what is agreeable to one might not be agreeable to all. What is dear to the gods? The pious is that is loved by the gods, while the impious is that which is hated by them. So being dear to the gods is the form by which all pious acts are pious.
There is sufficient generality. In fact, this generality is implicit in Euthyphro's argument for the first proposal. Who is euthyphro's father? Euthyphro's statement has not been adequate for this purpose. Nevertheless, Socrates insists that, inasmuch as Euthyphro has brought a criminal charge against his own father, he must have known the nature of impiety or he would have been unable to decide that his father was guilty of it.
Is pious loved by the gods? But something that is pious isn't so because it is loved by the gods; rather, it is loved by the gods because it is pious. Being loved by the gods causes god-belovedness, but being loved by the gods does not cause piety. An illustration of why such a definition is flawed is provided in the following example: Two characteristics of a Washington apple are that it is a fruit and that it is red. While Socrates, with ease and aplomb, would presumably have found less trivial examples to which Euthyphro would have been forced to nod along, a simple one that comes to mind is ambrosia — the gods all love it, yet it would be difficult for even the most convoluted rhetorical acrobatics to defend the claim that the divine food is pious.
This extract, then, by being referred back to in the sections of the dialogue that follow it, takes on a central role in the argument and search for the form of piety in Euthyphro.
Since the self-same arguments which show that there is a distinction between the god-beloved and the pious can be applied to the god-hated and the impious, the definition fails on both counts. One question which could have been raised about the contrast between piety and impiety is as follows: Is it necessary that all which is not pious be impious?
In other words, does the world exist in a strict dichotomy between the pious and the impious, with no neutral ground? Euthyphro propounds definitions and arguments throughout this dialogue which are neither valid nor sound; his definitions are assertions sans premises, as repeatedly discovered on critical examination.
This in itself is a delicious irony, because Euthyphro is presumably merely repeating definitions of piety that a mentor figure such as his father taught him — the same father whom Euthyphro is now prosecuting for impious acts.
The implications of this Socratic conception of morality and justice as human constructs rather than divine constructs are obviously troubling to an orthodox theistic society such as that of Athens.
The dialogue, then, is a proxy questioning of Meletus himself. The Socratic method of eliciting truth by question and answer, especially as used to refute an argument. An irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory. Works Cited 1. Plato, and G. Five Dialogues. Hackett Pub. Professor Verity Harte. Guide to Philosophical Analysis. The repeated application of a recursive procedure or definition 5. Ancient Greek inventor famed for making automatons, the Cretan Labyrinth.
0コメント