Truth and Socrates Essay Example for Free

Truth and Socrates Essay Euthyphro – Plato Explain how the concept of holiness emerges in the dialogue and why it takes a prominent position in the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro. â€Å"Euthyphro answers that there is no difference of opinion, either among gods or men, as to the propriety of punishing a murderer. Yes, rejoins Socrates, when they know him to be a murderer; but you are assuming the point at issue. If all the circumstances of the case are considered, are you able to show that your father was guilty of murder, or that all the gods are agreed in approving of our prosecution of him? And must you not allow that what is hated by one god may be liked by another? Waiving this last, however, Socrates proposes to amend the definition, and say that what all the gods love is pious, and what they all hate is impious. To this Euthyphro agrees. † But the pious or holy is loved by the gods because it is pious or holy, which is equivalent to saying, that it is loved by them because it is dear to them. Here then appears to be a contradiction,Euthyphro has been giving an attribute or accident of piety only, and not the essence. Euthyphro acknowledges himself that his explanations seem to walk away or go round in a circle, like the moving figures of Daedalus, the ancestor of Socrates, who has communicated his art to his descendants. Present the three definitions that Euthyphro uses in his response to Socrates, and then explain how Socrates refutes each of Euthyphro’s definitions. 1) Euthyphro answers that there is no difference of opinion, either among gods or men, as to the propriety of punishing a murderer. Yes, rejoins Socrates, when they know him to be a murderer; but you are assuming the point at issue. If all the circumstances of the case are considered, are you able to show that your father was guilty of murder, or that all the gods are agreed in approving of our prosecution of him? And must you not allow that what is hated by one god may be liked by another? Socrates proceeds to analyze the new form of the definition. He shows that in other cases the act precedes the state; e. g. the act of being carried, loved, etc. precedes the state of being carried, loved, etc. , and therefore that which is dear to the gods is dear to the gods because it is first loved of them, not loved of them because it is dear to them. 2) The next definition, Piety is that which is loved of the gods, is shipwrecked on a refined distinction between the state and the act, corresponding respectively to the adjective (philon) and the participle (philoumenon), or rather perhaps to the participle and the verb (philoumenon and phileitai). The act is prior to the state (as in Aristotle the energeia precedes the dunamis); and the state of being loved is preceded by the act of being loved. But piety or holiness is preceded by the act of being pious, not by the act of being loved; and therefore piety and the state of being loved are different. Through such subtleties of dialectic Socrates is working his way into a deeper region of thought and feeling. He means to say that the words loved of the gods express an attribute only, and not the essence of piety. 3) Then follows the third and last definition, Piety is a part of justice. Thus far Socrates has proceeded in placing religion on a moral foundation. He is seeking to realize the harmony of religion and morality, which the great poets Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Pindar had unconsciously anticipated, and which is the universal want of all men. To this the soothsayer adds the ceremonial element, attending upon the gods. When further interrogated by Socrates as to the nature of this attention to the gods, he replies, that piety is an affair of business, a science of giving and asking, and the like. Socrates points out the anthropomorphism of these notions, (compare Symp. ; Republic; Politicus. ) But when we expect him to go on and show that the true service of the gods is the service of the spirit and the co-operation Formulate your own argument as to what you think Socrates’s goal is in this dialogue. How do you know that is his goal? What features of the dialogue align with your interpretation of his goal? Generally, we do assume that we know things, although the skeptic is always around to remind us that maybe our confidence shouldnt be too high. The correspondence theorist insists that our knowledge claims are true, or at least very reliable, if our claims match up, or correspond, to the way the world actually is. The coherence theorist, in contrast, suggests that our various beliefs all must fit together, or cohere, correctly. Kant offers an alternative that combines a correspondence theory of truth (that is, our claims are true if they correspond to the world) and a rule–oriented theory of knowledge (that is, what we call knowledge must not break any of the rules that give us the ability to make those knowledge claims in the first place). a. Provide your own definition of piety/holiness and then create a Socratic response/critique of your definition. After you present your definition, take on the role of Socrates and respond to your own definition as you think he would.