You say you want to serve humanity. And what is humanity engaged in at the moment? OLIVAW: It's true, everyone seems to be trying with all their might to destroy the Galactic Empire and usher in a dark age that will last a hundred thousand years. We're doing what we can to stop them. But it's like they have some kind of death wish. You said they'd rather destroy themselves. It's such a shame we can't prolong this interesting discussion. I also regret that we cannot talk more.
Can't live with them, can't live without them. But, if you interpret the Three Laws in a sufficiently broad context View all 8 comments. Aug 23, Monotony Boy rated it liked it. The God's love that shit! Socrates: "Awesome! Im being accused of being impious, and think they'll make me drink hemlock for corrupting the youth. So, it's What serves as the virtue of holiness? Something can't be holy just because it's revered as holy, it, by its very nature, can only be considered holy because it is holy, right?
Hey its been chill, but I gotta go. I wanted to know! Mar 30, Roy Lotz rated it it was amazing Shelves: highly-recommended-favorites , platonic-love , oldie-but-goodie. Euthyphro begins the story of the trial and death of Socrates. Here we see the Socratic dialogue form stripped to its bare essentials, with only two speakers, one problem, and minimal framing. Socrates is on his way to his trial; he has been accused, among other things, of impiety. Socrates asks Euthyphro how he can be sure that this prosecution is the right thing to do, which leads to a discussion of piety.
The argument takes many turns, of course, but boils down to the famous Euthyphro dilemma: Is an action pious because it is beloved by the gods, or beloved by the gods because it is pious? While this may seem like mere sophistry, the implications of this question are immensely destructive to theistic ethical codes.
For if morality exists independently of God or, in other words, if we can know what is right or wrong without consulting the divine will why consider God the fountain of good? And if morality is defined by the will of a God, how can we know what that will is? Perhaps via revelation: but then how distinguish legitimate and fake revelation? For if morality had no existence except the will of God, then no revelation, however apparently abominable, could be discounted.
The only way out of the dilemma is to accept that good and bad can be distinguished without any supernatural considerations. Euthyphro is, thus, of immense philosophical interest. It is also a dramatic masterpiece. Perhaps in no other work has Plato so convincingly shown the contrast between the reflective and the non-reflective mind. I continually found myself chuckling as I read.
Yet again I am amazed that Plato, who started the Western philosophic tradition, remains its most able writer. Jun 03, Julian Worker rated it really liked it. Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the true meaning of piety in relation to the gods. Aug 24, David Sarkies rated it really liked it Recommends it for: Everybody. Shelves: philosophy. Socrates debates the essence of morality 24 April The scene of this dialogue is on the steps of the Athenian Courthouse known as the King's Archon as Socrates is preparing to answer the charges of being disrespectful to the gods and corrupting the youth.
There is a discussion about this at the opening to this dialogue, however I will not go into too much detail as I will leave it for later commentaries to discuss in particular the Apology , and also the book in which this dialogue is conta Socrates debates the essence of morality 24 April The scene of this dialogue is on the steps of the Athenian Courthouse known as the King's Archon as Socrates is preparing to answer the charges of being disrespectful to the gods and corrupting the youth.
There is a discussion about this at the opening to this dialogue, however I will not go into too much detail as I will leave it for later commentaries to discuss in particular the Apology , and also the book in which this dialogue is contained, the Last Days of Socrates.
Rather, I will discuss the content of this dialogue, and also some of the nasty tricks that Socrates uses when discussing the issue of holiness with Euthyphro. Now, apparently the name Euthyphro means' right-minded', though we must remember that in Greek, the prefix eu gives the word that it is attached to a good meaning. For instance, the word angelos ' means messanger, and by adding eu to it creating euangelos , from which our word evangelical comes from means 'good messanger' or good message.
However, and I will not go too deep into this here, these days that word has lost its original meaning and tends to refer to somebody who is self-righteous and condemning. To be honest with you, a message that constantly tells us that we are sinners and destined to hell unless we bind ourselves to a particular church and its teaching is hardly a good message.
As you will see, though, this will become important, but first, a bit more of a background. It may appear that the only two people around would be Socrates and Euthyphro, but I do not believe that this is the case.
Socrates was heading into court to answer his charges, and as such he is most likely being accompanied by his students.
One of the things about his students is that they were here to learn, so it would be highly unlikely that they would have taken part in the discussion.
They would be listening and watching. I guess a really good picture would be similar to Jesus and his disciples, though remember that when Jesus was led to his trial, while he went willingly, he was surrounded by enemies and not friends. Further, we can be assured that Plato, and possibly even Xenophon, would have been present simply because it is through these two individuals that we have first hand accounts of Socrates' trial.
Now, onto the Socratic method of argument. One of the reasons that we were taught this dialogue at university is because it is an excellent example of the Socratic method, and in many ways it is a method that is still used today. If you were to go and watch a trial in one of the common law countries, you will see lawyers, and in particular good lawyers, using this method to arrive, not so much at the truth, but at what they want to come out as the truth.
While the opening and closing arguments are simply speeches, it is during examination of the witnesses that the ability to use the Socratic method is important. What is the Socratic method? It is simply by treating the person as an expert, and then using a series of questions to have them produce answers that you want. It is not simply asking questions, but asking the right questions, that is the key to mastering the Socratic method. Now, as we read through this dialogue, we notice two important things.
First of all Socrates never claims to be an expert. In fact while not mentioned in this dialogue his position is always one of ignorance. As he says to Euphythro, he is obviously the expert in morality, and in fact suggests that if Euphythro were to claim that Socrates was his student, then Milteus would not have a leg to stand on because it is clear, and well known, that Euphythro is an expert on morality.
The second thing that I noticed is Socrates' use of what we call faulty logic, namely he completely twists the argument around, getting an answer out of Euphythro before he even realises what he has said. An example would be 'all dogs have four legs, this dog has three legs, therefore it is not a dog'.
What Socrates does is that he has Euphythro agree to a number of statements 'a led object is not a led object because it can be led, but because it is led; a carried object is not a carried object because it can be carried, but because we carry it; a seen object is not a seen object because it can be seen, but because we see it' , but then he twists them around to support his argument that a moral object is a moral object because it is loved, but because the God's love it.
Though, when we are considering an object we must remember that an action is also seen as an object. Now, the reason this discussion begins is because of the reason Euphythro is at court. What happened is that on his father's estate on the island of Naxos one of the day labourers go into a drunken brawl and killed a slave, so his father bound the day labourer, threw him into a ditch, and left him there until his could get word back from Athens to find out what to do with him.
Now, travelling from Naxos to Athens and back again took a lot longer then than it did does I'd say at most a week , so during that time the day labourer died. So, Euthyphro decides to prosecute his father for manslaughter there was no such thing as a public prosecution in 5th century Athens , and the question that is raised is not whether his father did wrong he clearly did but whether it is right for Euthyphro to prosecute him at all. While my answer is yes, Socrates' answer is no, the reason being is that the respect that a son should have for his father should prevent him from acting in such a way.
It was his father's decision to behave in this manner, and as such Euthyphro, as the son, should then be respecting his father's decision. It is not his role to step into the shoes of the day labourer and prosecute his father, despite there being nobody to actually prosecute the father on the day labourer's behalf. Now, the translation that I read uses the word piety, however that word is incredibly misleading. Going to church and tithing, to us, is pious, and in fact the chief priests who called for Jesus' prosecution, were also pious, but that does not necessarily mean that their actions, as is outlined here, are beloved by God.
Holiness is probably a better word, though Liddel and Scott translate the word osia as 'divine law'. I have used the word morality in this context, and will continue to do so, as I believe that this is probably the best term to use because it seems to define, from the context of the dialogue, as an action that is loved by the gods.
Now, unlike our monotheistic culture were we only have one god upon which to base the rightness of an action, Athens had multiple gods, meaning that the rightness of an action really comes down to which god considered the action right, and which ones did not, which created a much more relativistic and pluralistic society. However, Socrates narrows this down to being an action that all of the gods considered wrong such as murder , and the discussion is narrowed to whether there are such actions, and whether they are relativistic or not.
Socrates believes that there are, but then remember that Socrates technically only acknowledged one god. Further, most of the Greeks at this time did not really pay much attention to the actions of the gods and only referred to them when they wanted to win a particular argument.
This does not mean that they were not religious, they were incredibly religious, it is just that their idea of morality was quite fluid. However, there were laws, such as murder, which simply could not be washed away. Aug 27, Matthew Ted rated it really liked it Shelves: ancient-greece , philosophy , 18th-century-and-prior , translated.
Like performing Shakespeare, I cannot decide which word to stress, so I have written down both. But Euthyphro, come back and tell us what makes the virtuous, virtuous! May 21, Michael A. This text will always hold a special place in my heart as it is one of the first philosophical texts I ever read, and this text induced a love of philosophy within me, along with Parmenides and Marx.
This is a frustrating dialogue, because Euthyphro throws in the towel Before Socrates has properly interrogated him technically, a foul. Socrates does not understand the Homeric account of the gods.
That disagreements should arise among them is not particularly odd; The essential mission of Aryan gods is eternal war against Entropy, Decreasing which in the cosmos is the true definition of piety. In this the gods are all as one, and what's loved by them all is pious; They follow an imperative beyond This is a frustrating dialogue, because Euthyphro throws in the towel Before Socrates has properly interrogated him technically, a foul.
In this the gods are all as one, and what's loved by them all is pious; They follow an imperative beyond themselves, in spite of Socrates' bias. The gods follow the ultimate good that they love it is one of its attributes, But not however its essence , else sans meaning would be their attitudes. There is no 'Euthyphro dilemma', for you see both gods and men Follow something higher call it 'good' , whose essence is beyond them. We help the gods to help the good, not the other way around; This dialogue will clarify that - frustrating, yet profound.
A rather abrupt end to a rather interesting dialogue. This picks up right where Meno left off with an addition of piety to the ongoing dialogue about virtue. Socrates off tangential discussion doesn't dissuade Euthyphro as Euthyphro tries to answer Socrates questions as much as possible. With impending trial looming in the horizon, Plato addresses piety, justice in the same sentence which sounds fascinating but like Socrates, we are left in the dust. Euthyphro says bye-bye mid dialogue making this A rather abrupt end to a rather interesting dialogue.
Euthyphro says bye-bye mid dialogue making this a very short conversation indeed. Still its brilliant in the way Socrates quietly demolishes traditional perspectives on Gods and Myths.
May 19, Brad Lyerla rated it really liked it. I enjoyed the translation by Benjamin Jowett, which I read this past week. He poses the famous question do the Gods love something because it is holy or is it holy because the Gods love it? Natural right or convention? Have fun. Socrates has been slack in making his homage to the Athenian gods.
Now the young men who follow Socrates also begin to be slack in their making homage, their civic duty. Socrates is called to court. He must present an apologia , a courtroom defense. And he is unsure how to prepare his defense. Socrates seeks answers from many, including Euthyphro. Because Plato has left us with one representative consultation-dialogue which indicates the nature of all the consultation-dialogues, textual S Athens. Because Plato has left us with one representative consultation-dialogue which indicates the nature of all the consultation-dialogues, textual Socrates is depicted as badgering Euthyphro with questions until Euthyphro gets frustrated and leaves Socrates, perhaps on the street.
For Socrates this cannot bode well. For we readers of the text, we can get insights into cause-and-effect, motivations, and limitations of these. Worth a reread. I rated this text at 4 stars because some other Plato texts will impress me significantly more. I am expecting to be blown away by some of what we read in The Republic. Shelves: philosophy , greek-and-roman. I am reading , as part of a project to read all four Plato's dialogues that address the issue of the trial and death of Socrates.
Euthyphron is by far the shortest of the four. It simply feels incomplete. This is why I am giving it only three stars. Euthyphron would however merit five stars if it were to be considered simply as the beginning to the set created after the fact of dialogues I am reading , as part of a project to read all four Plato's dialogues that address the issue of the trial and death of Socrates.
Euthyphron would however merit five stars if it were to be considered simply as the beginning to the set created after the fact of dialogues related to the demise of Socrates. Plato makes two points. First, that to live piously is not a question of following rules; it is about living according to the wishes of God. Second, what is pleasing to God is a constant that has nothing to do with how imminent death is. Jan 12, B. Translated by G.
This will be my third Platonic dialogue after The Republic and the Apology. This dialogue has Socrates awaiting his official indictment on impiety among a litany of other things and he runs into a friend who is a priest and is in the process of having his father charged with murder. As they talk, they decide to try and define what makes someone pious or impi I'm read this as a part of The Trial and Death of Socrates as reprinted in the Classics of Western Philosophy.
As they talk, they decide to try and define what makes someone pious or impious and what piety actually is. Now, like with all dialogues involving Socrates and written by Plato they start by trying to define one thing and then want to define what they defining and this is done until Socrates remembers what the original question is and realize that they may not have answered it.
So from what I can grasp I think it was agreed that the pious had the quality of being loved by the gods; that while being pious means being just, you can be just without necessarily being pious; that that piety involves caring for the gods and that caring is defined as "the good and benefit of the object being cared for. View 1 comment. Sep 25, Minh rated it it was amazing. Socrates: But if in fact what is dear to the gods and the holy were the same, my friend, then, if the holy were loved because it is holy, what is dear to the gods would be loved because it is dear to the gods; but if what is dear to the gods were dear to the gods because the gods love it, the holy would be holy because it is loved.
But as it is, you see, the opposite is true, and the two are completely different. For the one what is dear to the gods is of the sort to be loved because it is lo Socrates: But if in fact what is dear to the gods and the holy were the same, my friend, then, if the holy were loved because it is holy, what is dear to the gods would be loved because it is dear to the gods; but if what is dear to the gods were dear to the gods because the gods love it, the holy would be holy because it is loved.
For the one what is dear to the gods is of the sort to be loved because it is loved; the other the holy , because it is of the sort to be loved, therefore is loved.
It would seem, Euthyphro, that when you asked what the holy is, you did not mean to make its nature and reality clear to me; you mentioned a mere affection of it--the holy has been so affected as to be loved by all the gods. But what it really is, you have not yet said. So if you please, Euthyphro, do not conceal things from me! Start again from the beginning and tell me what sort of thing the holy is.
We will not quarrel over whether it is loved by the gods, or whether it is affected in other ways. Tell me in earnest: what is the holy and unholy? Euthyphro: Fuck Maurice Lieberman taught "Humanites The Ancient World" at Grinnell College which I took, there being no choice in the matter, during the first semester.
The first book read was Plato's Euthyphro, an ironic early dialog about piety. It was my first direct exposure to the philosopher. The presentation was peculiar. Lieberman had hay fever. It was late summer.
His nose ran continuously during the class, yet he proceeded to read aloud the entire text, pausing regularly to wipe his nose and m Maurice Lieberman taught "Humanites The Ancient World" at Grinnell College which I took, there being no choice in the matter, during the first semester. His nose ran continuously during the class, yet he proceeded to read aloud the entire text, pausing regularly to wipe his nose and mustachioed upper lip with a saturated, florid handkerchief. This was distracting.
The point, I later inferred, was that Euthyphro had met Sokrates on the steps of a courthouse, en route to pressing dubious charges against his father. For the Greeks, piety had as much, if not more, to do with respect for elders, including the dead, as it did with any gods--the stories about whom, notably, Sokrates questions. Lieberman, who must have been in his fifties or older at the time, had problems dealing with the youth of the sixties.
I think he was admonishing us. Unfortunately, this realization came later. I think he was more likely mostly talking to himself. That disagreements should arise among them is not particularly odd; The essential mission of Aryan gods is eternal war against Entropy, Decreasing the amount of which in the cosmos is true definition of piety.
In this the gods are as one, and what is loved by them all is pious; They follow an imperative This is a frustrating dialogue, because Euthyphro throws in the towel Before Socrates has properly interrogated him technically, a foul. In this the gods are as one, and what is loved by them all is pious; They follow an imperative beyond themselves, in spite of Socrates' bias.
What is holy gets approved of by the gods because it is holy, so what is holy determines what gets approved of by the gods. And what gets approved of by the gods in turn determines what is approved of by the gods. It follows from this reasoning that what is holy cannot be the same thing as what is approved of by the gods, since one of these two determines what gets approved of by the gods and the other is determined by what gets approved of by the gods.
Euthyphro is next led to suggest that holiness is a kind of justice, specifically, that kind which is concerned with looking after the gods. Socrates wonders what Euthyphro means by "looking after the gods.
Euthyphro's final suggestion is that holiness is a kind of trading with the gods, where we give them sacrifices and they grant our prayers. Our sacrifices do not help them in any way, but simply gratify them. But, Socrates points out, to say that holiness is gratifying the gods is similar to saying that holiness is what is approved of by the gods, which lands us back in our previous conundrum. Rather than try to find a better definition, Euthyphro leaves in a huff, frustrated by Socrates' questioning.
SparkTeach Teacher's Handbook. Summary Summary Context Analysis and Themes 2a - 4e 4e - 6e 7a - 9e 10a - 11a 11b - 14a 14b - 16a. Summary Summary. Next section Context.
0コメント