In the Euthyphro, Socrates attempts to work with Euthyphro to define piety and Euthyphro’s second definition of piety is “what is dear to the gods” (7). This definition does not work because Socrates points out that “the gods are in a state of discord…they are at odds with each other” (7b), and therefore goes on to state that “different gods consider different things to be just, beautiful, ugly, good, and bad” (7e). Socrates’ final conclusion is that the same things are loved by the gods and hated by the gods because they must differ as to what is good and bad if they are in a state of disagreement. Therefore, the same things would be pious and impious, therefore proving Euthyphro’s definition of piety to be wrong.
What Socrates may actually mean in his statement that different gods consider different things to be just is that different people consider different things to be just. He may actually be making a comparison between the understandings of the gods in Greek cultures to those of people. Like people, the gods differ in their values. Euthyphro states that, despite this difference in values amongst the gods, “on this subject no gods would differ from one another, that whoever has killed anyone unjustly should not pay the penalty” (8b). Socrates replies, “Have you ever heard any man maintaining that one who has killed or done anything else unjustly should not pay the penalty?” (8c). He later explains in a direct comparison between men and gods, “those who disagree, whether men or gods, dispute about each action…some say it is done justly, others unjustly” (8e). Finally, Socrates completely invalidates Euthyphro’s statement by asking for proof that all the gods would agree that Euthyphro’s action of prosecuting his father for murder was pious. This statement completely defeats Euthyphro’s point because it cannot actually be proven in any way that all the gods would agree on a judgment such as what is pious. Similarly, it cannot be proven that all people would agree that Euthyphro’s definition of piety was correct. This further proves Socrates’ comparison between gods and men. Euthyphro lastly defines piety as “what all the gods love” (11e), even though it was already proven to be untrue by Socrates. However, this definition is found to be unacceptable in another way because it is found to be an aspect of piety that is non-essential to a complete understanding of what piety is. Therefore, if even the gods cannot be used to determine the definition of piety, then, clearly, it is only left up to people like Socrates and Euthyphro to define exactly what makes an action pious or impious. However, it was previously proven that people also differed in their judgments of what is pious in Socrates’ comparison between men and gods. Hence the question: can piety be defined?
There are two types of judgments: ones that are based upon existence, and ones that are based upon individual values. A judgment of measurement or color, for example, would be based on what exists. On the other hand, a judgment of whether something is just would be based upon individual values. Judgments based upon what exists, also known as facts, are proven by existence and therefore accepted as truth. Judgments based upon individual values (whether of the person or of the god), also known as opinions, are unaccepted. Firstly, people differ and contradict each other as to what they value, and standard values amongst all individuals cannot be proven to exist. Secondly, opinions like the judgment of piety cannot be proven by existence anyway, and therefore still cannot be accepted as truth. Therefore, piety can never be truly defined.
Finding the truth by uncovering the false Philosophy is a process designed to uncover truth; the complexity to this is revealed when one realizes that philosophy doesn’t actually state the truth; rather, it leads one to find what is not the truth, in order to come to a better understanding of what the truth really is. Measurable types of judgments, such as the length of a pen, are simple to verify as truth or false; it is when non-measurable judgments, such as the definition of piety, come into question that philosophy can be used to uncover the truth. When Euthyphro and Socrates face the problem of a non-measurable judgment, Socrates provokes Euthyphro with questions to determine the definition of piety. Socrates explains this process by saying, “Then let us again examine whether that is a sound statement, or do we let it pass, and if one of us, or someone else, merely says something is so, do we accept that it is so? Or should we examine what the speaker says?”(9e) In asking this, he implies the answer that one must examine the speaker’s argument; and thus reveals the philosophic process that he is using. But Socrates makes no effort to assert opinions of his own, providing no answer from his own philosophic thought process; he simply leads Euthyphro to realize that each of his definitions of his piety is wrong. In the end, this process of questioning reaches no final conclusion, and Euthyphro leads himself in a circle to his original definition, finally giving up. The conversation between these two appears to have done little at all to reach the truth; Socrates’ philosophical questions led them to no answer, and it seemed as if a solution would never be attainable. Thus at first glance, philosophy would seem to not lead one to an answer, or the truth, as shown by Euthyphro’s experience.
Though philosophy doesn’t lead one to an answer and the truth, it can help one become closer to approximating the truth, by eliminating what the truth is not. Superficially, it doesn’t appear as if Euthyphro and Socrates made any progress by the end of the conversation, having reached no answer; however, the learning and deeper understanding of piety is achieved during the process of philosophy, not by the end of it. Due to Socrates’ questions, Euthyphro is forced to revise his argument, such as when Socrates says “But you say that the same things are considered just by some gods and unjust by others, and as they dispute these things they are at odds and at war with each other … And the same things would be both pious and impious according to this argument?” (8). In asking this, Socrates causes Euthyphro to realize his mistake and thus debunk his own argument, and revise it. This process of questioning and revision helps one come to a better understanding of what a good argument should be, and how to better define piety. Though this argument may never necessarily be perfected, one understands how to change his thought process to approximate the truth more closely. More importantly, it causes one to realize what is wrong with the argument; what is not truth.
(since i cant post more than 4000-something characters, here's the last paragraph....)
Philosophy, though searching for the truth, instead states what the truth is not; this then leads one to a better understanding of what the truth is. The process of revision that Socrates prompts Euthyphro with causes him to understand the flaws in his argument, and what piety is not. For example, Euthyphro’s initial definition of piety is, “what I am doing how to prosecute the wrongdoer” (5e), yet when Socrates explains that there are many other pious actions and that this definition does not account for examples, Euthyphro realizes his mistake and changes his definition to, “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (7). By pointing out the problems in Euthyphro’s argument, Socrates assists him in crafting a better one. It is definitely possible that in some cases the truth can never be completely found, and piety cannot be completely denied; yet, using this questioning and revising process, one can discover what is definitely not the truth. This can be compared to a bucket of 98 red marbles and 2 green marbles, If one wants to find all the red marbles, he can pick all of them out one by one; on the other hand, he can simply remove what are not red marbles, the green marbles. However, though one may be able to definitely find all 98 red marbles, reaching a final conclusion in philosophy is not always possible. If one knows what the truth is not, then what is left must contain the truth. By separating what is shown and reasoned to be false from one’s argument and thus editing it, he is left with an idea that comes closer to the truth; thus one can conclude that by allowing one to find what is not the truth, philosophy helps him move closer to reaching or approximating what is the truth.
What is a definition? A definition is something that is able to account for all its examples. This creates a ‘sufficient’ definition. A definition must also have the ability to pick out all the correct examples to better demonstrate what it is. This type of definition is necessary; it is more like the true meaning. Now this leads to the discussion of Socrates’ dialogue in which Socrates questions Euthyphro, “What is the definition of piety?” The debate of piety and what it is was the focal point of Euthyphro’s and Socrates’ conversation. Undergoing a series of questions, the responses, and reasoning, Socrates attempts to uncover what piety is. During the discussion, Euthyphro attempts to define piety for Socrates- (1) “What is dear to the gods…” (7) and (2) “What is loved by all gods…” Socrates is content with the first definition stating that it is good in its given form. Socrates explains to Euthyphro that the definition implies “an action or man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious.” (pg. 8) However, Socrates then brings up that there are many gods that hold different things dear. Therefore, what pleases one god may be despised by another. At this time Euthyphro changes his definition and presents definition 2, ‘what is loved by all gods.’ What Euthyphro fails to realize is that Socrates’ reasoning shows that what is loved by one god is based on an opinion. If opinions vary, how can something be defined as pious? There are two types of judgments mentioned in Socrates’ dialogue. Type I judgments include questions regarding things such as length and weight. These types of arguments have only one answer that is obvious. Socrates says, “If we differed about the larger and the smaller, we would turn to measurement and soon cease to differ.” (7c) Socrates proclaims that these problems can easily be resolved. Any debate over these situations can be solved with simple solutions such as measuring or weighing the object; therefore, Type I judgments have only one true answer because they are measurable. Piety, however, falls within the Type II judgments. Type II judgments also include dilemmas such as beautiful vs. ugly. Such arguments are opinion based therefore they’re non-measurable. One’s answer can conflict with another’s since opinions vary from person to person. Non-measurable arguments support that piety cannot be loved by all gods because what one god loves, another may not. In conclusion, it is impossible to label something as pious or impious. Piety is based on oneself and his views. Because it varies from person to person, it cannot have a concrete definition. Something can be both pious and impious at the same time for it may be pious to one person while impious to another. Towards the end of Socrates’ dialogue, Socrates states to Euthyphro, “Do you not realize our argument has moved around and come again to the same place.” (15c) Socrates implies that because piety is opinion based, the quest of finding its definition would have repeated itself and ended up no where.
Throughout human history, many questions have remained unanswered. In fact, some of these questions might concern you. If someone were to ask you why you liked using blue pens, you might say, “Because the pen is blue.” However, does that really tell us why you like using blue pens? We already know that the pen is blue. The question was; why do you like blue pens? Instead of answering it, you simply gave a characteristic about the pen. Around 400 B.C, this same common mistake happened. A prosecutor by the name of Euthyphro was in a Greek court, about to prosecute his own father for murder. Euthyphro was not there to have a long and tedious discussion with a currently prominent philosopher, but nevertheless, that’s exactly what he got. Socrates, a Greek philosopher who enjoys spending time with children in the Lyceum, was at the very same court, as he was being indicted for corrupting the young and not believing in the gods. Socrates goes up to Euthyphro and engages in a very illuminating dialogue about whether prosecuting your own father is pious or not. After several definitions, Euthyphro comes up with a satisfactory one that somewhat pleases Socrates temporarily Euthyphro identifies pious as “what is dear to the gods.” (7a) Socrates is now very happy about this definition, and even calls it ‘splendid’. However, Socrates does not find it splendid at all. If he did, he wouldn’t ask “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved?” (10a) Socrates was hoping that Euthyphro would deny the second of these two choices. Socrates believed that the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious. If any of us were to pick from those two choices, we would probably say the same. However is it really true? No, says Marc Cohen in his article “Socrates on the Definition of Piety: Euthyphro 10A- 11B”. Marc Cohen explains this to us with his own simple example, eliminating ‘pious’ and replacing it with a Greek letter. “Someone or something p-s a thing because it is a p-ed thing” (6) Does that make any sense at all? Can you really say that? Do the gods really love the pious because it is pious? No, of course not. Here, we’re just going in circles. What is the pious? The pious is loved by the gods. Why? Because it’s pious. But what’s pious? By using Socrates’ first answer, you never get anywhere. You will never actually learn why the gods love the pious. We already know it’s pious. Why do the gods love it though? When asked why something is p-ed, we must learn something new about the object, not that it is p-ed because it is p-ed. For example, a good reason for why you might like blue pens, is because blue is the color of the skies. In order to answer questions like these, you must be able to give new information that the interviewee was not aware of.
Douglas Murray Philosophy 2/25/10 Euthyphro Paper Descriptions change over time. How do we describe an object if its traits are constantly changing? If there is a red pen that is being carried by someone, and that person sets it down, it is no longer being carried. Its traits have changed. This is an example of a “temporary trait” such as something’s location or age, but in reality, all traits are temporary to some extent. Say that there is a red pen that someone is carrying. They set it down and then paint it blue. It is now just a blue pen, and even then someone could smash it into a powder and it wouldn’t even be a pen anymore. This poses a problem if you describe something, since your description of it has changed. That is the problem with descriptions. Due to this problem, definitions are difficult to pin down. In the discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates on the definition of piety, they said in their third definition that “the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is impious.” (9e) Socrates then pointed out that the gods’ opinions changed over time, like any person. This same concept can apply to any things. With time, people, places, and things will change. You might say that something is green, but it may have faded over time. However, you can always say that something used to fit a description. You could say that this object used to be green or something similar for anything. In this way, definitions can be reached in the past or present form. One could describe an object through its most recent traits, going by the latest verdict; a strategy that might be useful with Socrates and Euthyphro’s third definition of piety. To find out whether or not an action is pious, one could go to the Greek scriptures or a priest to find out what the gods love now. The other type of description is one of an object’s past. Many people use this description commonly, such as “My dog used to be fat.” These two can be used in conjunction; however one needs to use the past description with discretion. One should not describe everything in something’s past; just what you feel is important. For example, if there is a blue pen on the table, you might say that it was formerly red, but not mention that someone was carrying it. You should only give what’s relevant, not explain every detail about its existence. To use the third definition of piety to describe an action, and tell whether or not it is pious, you might say that the gods love this action, and therefore it is pious. However, one god did not love this action for a long time. Therefore, the third definition might be useful if you use the most current opinion of the gods.
Angkita Podder Philospohy 2-25-10 Winning vs. Getting Closer to the Truth. Mr. Wille
One of mankind’s main flaws is its ego and the urge to win even when the situation is not about winning. Such a situation would be the quest for truth about a subject and better understanding it. However people seem to get lost and forget about the truth and make their biggest concern “winning” or persuading others to believe they are right. In “Euthyphro”, Euthyphro goes to prosecute his father but finds himself in a conversation with the protagonist Socrates, who is there to present his own case. They both go on different paths of argument both claiming they want to find the truth. Euthyphro chooses the sophist way because he wants to do “justice” and be “pious” to the people by punishing his father. In contrast, Socrates uses the better argument which is a philosophical one; because he only cares about finding the truth of piety, whether or not it saves a person. Sophists in ancient Greece were a philosophical group but their arguments made were extremely flawed with superficial reasoning, which were meant for deceiving. It can also be referred as an intentional fallacy. Euthyphro without realization makes a sophist argument by saying he must prosecute his father as a pending criminal because that is what is right and pious. When Socrates asks him what truly is piety, Euthyphro answers: “Pious is what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer…whether it father or your mother…I can cite powerful evidence that the law is so” (5E). Euthyphro personalizes what piety is by calling his actions correct even though he is solely basing his assumptions on laws made by an opinionated society. It completely takes away from knowing the truth of what piety is and knowing the truth about if his father beyond doubt is the murder. It only states that he thinks he is right and others are wrong. In contrast, Socrates employs a more simple argument based on doing philosophy to understand the truth. When Euthyphro gave his other opinion of what piety truly is Socrates simply kept questioning it. He did not attack Euthyphro but rather guided him to self realization that he indeed was wrong about his definition of piety. Then he attempted to give other definitions because he wanted them to support his actions and therefore help him win the argument “Pious is what is dear to gods”(7a). Euthyphro first said. However, with Socrates’ explanation of the two of judgments, one can understand that this only told what pleases the gods and nothing about the truth of piety. Socrates’ method helped eliminate answers and helped better understand what piety is not, rather than assume what it is. Euthyphro’s argument is very effective but not to find the truth. His method can used to manipulate human emotions and win a case for pride and being just as what a society accepts. However, Socrates is the better candidate for finding the truth because he uses a philosophical argument. Philosophy in general is to find the truth indirectly and if not, to better understand a subject. Similarly, Philosophical arguments unlike sophist arguments use logic, reason and effective examples to get closer to the truth; and therefore must be used more often to decipher the complexity of the attributes the mankinds build life on.
What is the definition of piety? In the Euthyphro dialogue of the “Trial and Death of Socrates”, Socrates poses the question of what is pious to a man he met in court named Euthyphro. Euthyphro is at court prosecuting his father for murder and states to Socrates “the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer” (5d). The problem with this definition is that it is restricting what could be pious to just this one action, which seems wrong. When Socrates explains this to Euthyphro, he then gives the definition “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (7). Although he answers in the way Socrates wants, the problem with this definition is that, as agreed between Socrates and Euthyphro, the gods are at war because of their different point of views, which shows that what may be pious and loved by one god could be the opposite to another. This then leads to Euthyphro next definition “the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is the impious” (9e). Socrates is satisfied with this definition, but then asks “Is the pious being loved because it is pious, or is it pious because it being loved by the gods?” (10). In trying to understand this better, Socrates talks about different actions that can be acted upon or acted by objects, such as something carried and a carried thing, something seen and seen thing, etc. From Project Muse, S. Marc Cohen discusses Socrates argument with Euthyphro on this matter. To represent any action, Cohen refers to the Greek symbol “φ” pronounced as “fie” or “fee”. When trying to understand the first part of Socrates’ question, “Is the pious being loved because it is pious”, it seems to ask if gods love the pious for being pious and for no other reason. Looking back into Cohen’s paper, putting it into context would be saying, “the gods φ pious because it is pious”. This is true. Although, in trying to find the true definition of piety, this doesn’t give you any new information. Saying the gods love pious things because they are pious doesn’t explain what the pious is, only that the gods love the pious for being what it is. When trying to understand the second part of Socrates’ question, “is it pious because it being loved by the gods”, it asks if gods loving things make things pious. How this differs from the first part of the question by asking if gods loving things makes pious things pious. This seems to restrict the definition of piety to what the gods love, which is wrong. This also shows that we, as human beings who do not know what the gods love, are incapable of defining piety. Looking at all things considered, the best that can be said in defining what makes pious acts pious can be easily generalized by Cohen’s last paragraph, “If a moral concept M (Piety) is such that there is an authority (us) whose judgment (our judgment) whether or not something falls under M is decisive and is rationally grounded (meaning to say that our reason makes sense and is down to earth), then ‘M’ cannot be defined in terms of that authority’s judgment.”
Wisdom When talking to Euthyphro about the Athenians he says they “do not mind anyone they think clever, as long as he does not teach his own wisdom” (3c). With the situation of being indicted for “creating new gods and not believing in the old ones”, it appears that Socrates shared more than enough of his wisdom to alert people. But just how is Socrates wise? What is it about this old philosopher’s actions that make him stay on the wisdom side of knowledge? Before concluding that Socrates isn’t clever, there must be an accurate definition to go by. An acceptable definition for clever, “showing self-interest and shrewdness in dealing with others”, can be used to show characteristics about Socrates. Socrates asks Euthyphro for the definition of piety. Instead of doubting Euthyphro claim of what he is doing is pious, Socrates asks him “what is the pious, and what is the impious” (5d). Socrates later goes back to a discarded argument and considers reevaluating it. “Either we were wrong when we agreed before or if we were right then, we are wrong now”(15c). Socrates admits being wrong in his and Euthyphro’s definition of piety, showing a lack of shrewdness in his motives. Although he may seem clever at first, his only motive is finding the truth and is even more eager to learn more. So how does Socrates show himself to be wise besides not showing interest in any aspect of the argument? First wisdom must be defined… Wisdom: knowledge of what is just or true used to perform just actions. One example that shines is Socrates advice to Euthyphro about presenting his case. As a rebuttal to Euthyphro’s claim that he needs to get the courts’ attention first, Socrates replies, “They will listen if they think you show them well”(9c). Knowing to only present truth in front of a court, Socrates tells Euthyphro a piece of advice that gave himself no benefit. Another example that Socrates shows of being wise, albeit very general, is the questioning of Euthyphro’s definitions of piety. Even though Socrates “claims” to have no knowledge of piety, he does not at the same time completely accept any definition of piety Euthyphro throws at him. Socrates tests these definitions against his own wealth of knowledge to either support or refute them without any motive but to find the truth. This is shown eagerly by Socrates while further explaining the third definition of piety… S: It aims to benefit the object of its care? E: Of course S: Is piety then, which is the care of the gods, also to benefit the gods and make them better? Would you agree that when you do something pious you make some one of the gods better? E: By Zeus, no. S: Nor did I think this is what you mean – far from it…” (13 c) Even faced with the possibility that an answer may not be found, Socrates stays focused on finding the truth, showing him to be more wise than clever.
Euthyphro’s third definition of piety states that piety is what is loved by all the gods. This definition does not work because it merely picks out what things are pious but does not tell what piety is. When he says, “what is dear to the gods is pious” (7), he says more about what the gods value than what piety is. Socrates doesn’t care about what the gods value – he’s on a quest for truth and wants a definition for piety. The quality, “god-loved,” does not define piety because qualities do not define. A quality is a small part in what it describes, but with or without that quality, the thing it describes will still exist. Socrates asks, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved?” (10) Mark Cohen suggests that Euthyphro does not completely understand Socrates’ question – he does not realize that he is being asked for a definition. Socrates specifically asks, “What is the pious?” (5d) then later asks for “that form that makes all pious actions pious” (6e). Euthyphro just picks out the things that are pious but he never answers why they are pious – what are the characteristics that make these actions pious?
So what, then, is piety? According to Euthyphro’s third definition it is what all the gods love but Socrates wants to figure out why the gods love it. The format of the question is peculiar, which is why Euthyphro must not have understood it. Cohen says that Socrates “hopes to get Euthyphro to affirm the first [that the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious] and deny the second [that the pious is pious because it is loved]” (pg 5, SDP). Imagine a situation where a person (x) likes diamond rings. Consider the question, “Is the diamond ring a diamond ring because x likes it?” The diamond ring will in fact be a diamond ring whether or not x likes it, or any number of diamond ring-liking people like it. “Diamond” and “ring” are both qualities of the object whether or not anyone likes it, so the reason for it being a diamond ring cannot be because it is liked (by x). Similarly, the reason for acts of piety being pious cannot be because they are liked by the gods if the gods like it because it is pious.
The definition of piety given by Euthyphro picks out what things are pious but doesn’t explain what piety is or why pious things are pious. It’s like having an electronics store (i.e. Best Buy) that sells every electronic object in existence, and maybe it does sell every possible electronic. But when someone asks what an electronic object is, the answer is not “the stuff you get at Best Buy.” The definition of an electronic is something that runs on electricity or energy. The definition of piety would be similar in that it actually says what piety is, rather than picking out pious acts. The definition should help pick out the pious acts, not just directly pick them out. Socrates has not found the proper knowledge for understanding piety yet because now he now knows only what things are pious. Perhaps neither of them ever reach a conclusion because piety isn’t something that can be measured on a scale – it is judged based on opinion rather than facts. There are two existing types of judgment: one that can be measured and one that cannot. The meaning of piety varies because its extent is defined by the individual and cannot be measured by any scale.
10 comments:
Paper Topic: Defining Piety
In the Euthyphro, Socrates attempts to work with Euthyphro to define piety and Euthyphro’s second definition of piety is “what is dear to the gods” (7). This definition does not work because Socrates points out that “the gods are in a state of discord…they are at odds with each other” (7b), and therefore goes on to state that “different gods consider different things to be just, beautiful, ugly, good, and bad” (7e). Socrates’ final conclusion is that the same things are loved by the gods and hated by the gods because they must differ as to what is good and bad if they are in a state of disagreement. Therefore, the same things would be pious and impious, therefore proving Euthyphro’s definition of piety to be wrong.
What Socrates may actually mean in his statement that different gods consider different things to be just is that different people consider different things to be just. He may actually be making a comparison between the understandings of the gods in Greek cultures to those of people. Like people, the gods differ in their values. Euthyphro states that, despite this difference in values amongst the gods, “on this subject no gods would differ from one another, that whoever has killed anyone unjustly should not pay the penalty” (8b). Socrates replies, “Have you ever heard any man maintaining that one who has killed or done anything else unjustly should not pay the penalty?” (8c). He later explains in a direct comparison between men and gods, “those who disagree, whether men or gods, dispute about each action…some say it is done justly, others unjustly” (8e). Finally, Socrates completely invalidates Euthyphro’s statement by asking for proof that all the gods would agree that Euthyphro’s action of prosecuting his father for murder was pious. This statement completely defeats Euthyphro’s point because it cannot actually be proven in any way that all the gods would agree on a judgment such as what is pious. Similarly, it cannot be proven that all people would agree that Euthyphro’s definition of piety was correct. This further proves Socrates’ comparison between gods and men. Euthyphro lastly defines piety as “what all the gods love” (11e), even though it was already proven to be untrue by Socrates. However, this definition is found to be unacceptable in another way because it is found to be an aspect of piety that is non-essential to a complete understanding of what piety is. Therefore, if even the gods cannot be used to determine the definition of piety, then, clearly, it is only left up to people like Socrates and Euthyphro to define exactly what makes an action pious or impious. However, it was previously proven that people also differed in their judgments of what is pious in Socrates’ comparison between men and gods. Hence the question: can piety be defined?
There are two types of judgments: ones that are based upon existence, and ones that are based upon individual values. A judgment of measurement or color, for example, would be based on what exists. On the other hand, a judgment of whether something is just would be based upon individual values. Judgments based upon what exists, also known as facts, are proven by existence and therefore accepted as truth. Judgments based upon individual values (whether of the person or of the god), also known as opinions, are unaccepted. Firstly, people differ and contradict each other as to what they value, and standard values amongst all individuals cannot be proven to exist. Secondly, opinions like the judgment of piety cannot be proven by existence anyway, and therefore still cannot be accepted as truth. Therefore, piety can never be truly defined.
Finding the truth by uncovering the false
Philosophy is a process designed to uncover truth; the complexity to this is revealed when one realizes that philosophy doesn’t actually state the truth; rather, it leads one to find what is not the truth, in order to come to a better understanding of what the truth really is. Measurable types of judgments, such as the length of a pen, are simple to verify as truth or false; it is when non-measurable judgments, such as the definition of piety, come into question that philosophy can be used to uncover the truth. When Euthyphro and Socrates face the problem of a non-measurable judgment, Socrates provokes Euthyphro with questions to determine the definition of piety. Socrates explains this process by saying, “Then let us again examine whether that is a sound statement, or do we let it pass, and if one of us, or someone else, merely says something is so, do we accept that it is so? Or should we examine what the speaker says?”(9e) In asking this, he implies the answer that one must examine the speaker’s argument; and thus reveals the philosophic process that he is using. But Socrates makes no effort to assert opinions of his own, providing no answer from his own philosophic thought process; he simply leads Euthyphro to realize that each of his definitions of his piety is wrong. In the end, this process of questioning reaches no final conclusion, and Euthyphro leads himself in a circle to his original definition, finally giving up. The conversation between these two appears to have done little at all to reach the truth; Socrates’ philosophical questions led them to no answer, and it seemed as if a solution would never be attainable. Thus at first glance, philosophy would seem to not lead one to an answer, or the truth, as shown by Euthyphro’s experience.
Though philosophy doesn’t lead one to an answer and the truth, it can help one become closer to approximating the truth, by eliminating what the truth is not. Superficially, it doesn’t appear as if Euthyphro and Socrates made any progress by the end of the conversation, having reached no answer; however, the learning and deeper understanding of piety is achieved during the process of philosophy, not by the end of it. Due to Socrates’ questions, Euthyphro is forced to revise his argument, such as when Socrates says “But you say that the same things are considered just by some gods and unjust by others, and as they dispute these things they are at odds and at war with each other … And the same things would be both pious and impious according to this argument?” (8). In asking this, Socrates causes Euthyphro to realize his mistake and thus debunk his own argument, and revise it. This process of questioning and revision helps one come to a better understanding of what a good argument should be, and how to better define piety. Though this argument may never necessarily be perfected, one understands how to change his thought process to approximate the truth more closely. More importantly, it causes one to realize what is wrong with the argument; what is not truth.
(since i cant post more than 4000-something characters, here's the last paragraph....)
Philosophy, though searching for the truth, instead states what the truth is not; this then leads one to a better understanding of what the truth is. The process of revision that Socrates prompts Euthyphro with causes him to understand the flaws in his argument, and what piety is not. For example, Euthyphro’s initial definition of piety is, “what I am doing how to prosecute the wrongdoer” (5e), yet when Socrates explains that there are many other pious actions and that this definition does not account for examples, Euthyphro realizes his mistake and changes his definition to, “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (7). By pointing out the problems in Euthyphro’s argument, Socrates assists him in crafting a better one. It is definitely possible that in some cases the truth can never be completely found, and piety cannot be completely denied; yet, using this questioning and revising process, one can discover what is definitely not the truth. This can be compared to a bucket of 98 red marbles and 2 green marbles, If one wants to find all the red marbles, he can pick all of them out one by one; on the other hand, he can simply remove what are not red marbles, the green marbles. However, though one may be able to definitely find all 98 red marbles, reaching a final conclusion in philosophy is not always possible. If one knows what the truth is not, then what is left must contain the truth. By separating what is shown and reasoned to be false from one’s argument and thus editing it, he is left with an idea that comes closer to the truth; thus one can conclude that by allowing one to find what is not the truth, philosophy helps him move closer to reaching or approximating what is the truth.
What is a definition? A definition is something that is able to account for all its examples. This creates a ‘sufficient’ definition. A definition must also have the ability to pick out all the correct examples to better demonstrate what it is. This type of definition is necessary; it is more like the true meaning. Now this leads to the discussion of Socrates’ dialogue in which Socrates questions Euthyphro, “What is the definition of piety?”
The debate of piety and what it is was the focal point of Euthyphro’s and Socrates’ conversation. Undergoing a series of questions, the responses, and reasoning, Socrates attempts to uncover what piety is. During the discussion, Euthyphro attempts to define piety for Socrates-
(1) “What is dear to the gods…” (7) and
(2) “What is loved by all gods…”
Socrates is content with the first definition stating that it is good in its given form. Socrates explains to Euthyphro that the definition implies “an action or man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious.” (pg. 8) However, Socrates then brings up that there are many gods that hold different things dear. Therefore, what pleases one god may be despised by another. At this time Euthyphro changes his definition and presents definition 2, ‘what is loved by all gods.’ What Euthyphro fails to realize is that Socrates’ reasoning shows that what is loved by one god is based on an opinion. If opinions vary, how can something be defined as pious?
There are two types of judgments mentioned in Socrates’ dialogue. Type I judgments include questions regarding things such as length and weight. These types of arguments have only one answer that is obvious. Socrates says, “If we differed about the larger and the smaller, we would turn to measurement and soon cease to differ.” (7c) Socrates proclaims that these problems can easily be resolved. Any debate over these situations can be solved with simple solutions such as measuring or weighing the object; therefore, Type I judgments have only one true answer because they are measurable. Piety, however, falls within the Type II judgments. Type II judgments also include dilemmas such as beautiful vs. ugly. Such arguments are opinion based therefore they’re non-measurable. One’s answer can conflict with another’s since opinions vary from person to person. Non-measurable arguments support that piety cannot be loved by all gods because what one god loves, another may not.
In conclusion, it is impossible to label something as pious or impious. Piety is based on oneself and his views. Because it varies from person to person, it cannot have a concrete definition. Something can be both pious and impious at the same time for it may be pious to one person while impious to another. Towards the end of Socrates’ dialogue, Socrates states to Euthyphro, “Do you not realize our argument has moved around and come again to the same place.” (15c) Socrates implies that because piety is opinion based, the quest of finding its definition would have repeated itself and ended up no where.
Throughout human history, many questions have remained unanswered. In fact, some of these questions might concern you. If someone were to ask you why you liked using blue pens, you might say, “Because the pen is blue.” However, does that really tell us why you like using blue pens? We already know that the pen is blue. The question was; why do you like blue pens? Instead of answering it, you simply gave a characteristic about the pen.
Around 400 B.C, this same common mistake happened. A prosecutor by the name of Euthyphro was in a Greek court, about to prosecute his own father for murder. Euthyphro was not there to have a long and tedious discussion with a currently prominent philosopher, but nevertheless, that’s exactly what he got. Socrates, a Greek philosopher who enjoys spending time with children in the Lyceum, was at the very same court, as he was being indicted for corrupting the young and not believing in the gods. Socrates goes up to Euthyphro and engages in a very illuminating dialogue about whether prosecuting your own father is pious or not. After several definitions, Euthyphro comes up with a satisfactory one that somewhat pleases Socrates temporarily Euthyphro identifies pious as “what is dear to the gods.” (7a) Socrates is now very happy about this definition, and even calls it ‘splendid’. However, Socrates does not find it splendid at all. If he did, he wouldn’t ask “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved?” (10a)
Socrates was hoping that Euthyphro would deny the second of these two choices. Socrates believed that the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious. If any of us were to pick from those two choices, we would probably say the same. However is it really true? No, says Marc Cohen in his article “Socrates on the Definition of Piety: Euthyphro 10A- 11B”. Marc Cohen explains this to us with his own simple example, eliminating ‘pious’ and replacing it with a Greek letter. “Someone or something p-s a thing because it is a p-ed thing” (6) Does that make any sense at all? Can you really say that? Do the gods really love the pious because it is pious? No, of course not.
Here, we’re just going in circles. What is the pious? The pious is loved by the gods. Why? Because it’s pious. But what’s pious? By using Socrates’ first answer, you never get anywhere. You will never actually learn why the gods love the pious. We already know it’s pious. Why do the gods love it though? When asked why something is p-ed, we must learn something new about the object, not that it is p-ed because it is p-ed. For example, a good reason for why you might like blue pens, is because blue is the color of the skies. In order to answer questions like these, you must be able to give new information that the interviewee was not aware of.
Douglas Murray
Philosophy
2/25/10
Euthyphro Paper
Descriptions change over time. How do we describe an object if its traits are constantly changing? If there is a red pen that is being carried by someone, and that person sets it down, it is no longer being carried. Its traits have changed. This is an example of a “temporary trait” such as something’s location or age, but in reality, all traits are temporary to some extent. Say that there is a red pen that someone is carrying. They set it down and then paint it blue. It is now just a blue pen, and even then someone could smash it into a powder and it wouldn’t even be a pen anymore. This poses a problem if you describe something, since your description of it has changed. That is the problem with descriptions.
Due to this problem, definitions are difficult to pin down. In the discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates on the definition of piety, they said in their third definition that “the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is impious.” (9e) Socrates then pointed out that the gods’ opinions changed over time, like any person. This same concept can apply to any things. With time, people, places, and things will change. You might say that something is green, but it may have faded over time. However, you can always say that something used to fit a description. You could say that this object used to be green or something similar for anything.
In this way, definitions can be reached in the past or present form. One could describe an object through its most recent traits, going by the latest verdict; a strategy that might be useful with Socrates and Euthyphro’s third definition of piety. To find out whether or not an action is pious, one could go to the Greek scriptures or a priest to find out what the gods love now. The other type of description is one of an object’s past. Many people use this description commonly, such as “My dog used to be fat.” These two can be used in conjunction; however one needs to use the past description with discretion. One should not describe everything in something’s past; just what you feel is important. For example, if there is a blue pen on the table, you might say that it was formerly red, but not mention that someone was carrying it. You should only give what’s relevant, not explain every detail about its existence. To use the third definition of piety to describe an action, and tell whether or not it is pious, you might say that the gods love this action, and therefore it is pious. However, one god did not love this action for a long time. Therefore, the third definition might be useful if you use the most current opinion of the gods.
Angkita Podder Philospohy
2-25-10 Winning vs. Getting Closer to the Truth. Mr. Wille
One of mankind’s main flaws is its ego and the urge to win even when the situation is not about winning. Such a situation would be the quest for truth about a subject and better understanding it. However people seem to get lost and forget about the truth and make their biggest concern “winning” or persuading others to believe they are right. In “Euthyphro”, Euthyphro goes to prosecute his father but finds himself in a conversation with the protagonist Socrates, who is there to present his own case. They both go on different paths of argument both claiming they want to find the truth. Euthyphro chooses the sophist way because he wants to do “justice” and be “pious” to the people by punishing his father. In contrast, Socrates uses the better argument which is a philosophical one; because he only cares about finding the truth of piety, whether or not it saves a person.
Sophists in ancient Greece were a philosophical group but their arguments made were extremely flawed with superficial reasoning, which were meant for deceiving. It can also be referred as an intentional fallacy. Euthyphro without realization makes a sophist argument by saying he must prosecute his father as a pending criminal because that is what is right and pious. When Socrates asks him what truly is piety, Euthyphro answers: “Pious is what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer…whether it father or your mother…I can cite powerful evidence that the law is so” (5E). Euthyphro personalizes what piety is by calling his actions correct even though he is solely basing his assumptions on laws made by an opinionated society. It completely takes away from knowing the truth of what piety is and knowing the truth about if his father beyond doubt is the murder. It only states that he thinks he is right and others are wrong.
In contrast, Socrates employs a more simple argument based on doing philosophy to understand the truth. When Euthyphro gave his other opinion of what piety truly is Socrates simply kept questioning it. He did not attack Euthyphro but rather guided him to self realization that he indeed was wrong about his definition of piety. Then he attempted to give other definitions because he wanted them to support his actions and therefore help him win the argument “Pious is what is dear to gods”(7a). Euthyphro first said. However, with Socrates’ explanation of the two of judgments, one can understand that this only told what pleases the gods and nothing about the truth of piety. Socrates’ method helped eliminate answers and helped better understand what piety is not, rather than assume what it is.
Euthyphro’s argument is very effective but not to find the truth. His method can used to manipulate human emotions and win a case for pride and being just as what a society accepts. However, Socrates is the better candidate for finding the truth because he uses a philosophical argument. Philosophy in general is to find the truth indirectly and if not, to better understand a subject. Similarly, Philosophical arguments unlike sophist arguments use logic, reason and effective examples to get closer to the truth; and therefore must be used more often to decipher the complexity of the attributes the mankinds build life on.
What is the definition of piety? In the Euthyphro dialogue of the “Trial and Death of Socrates”, Socrates poses the question of what is pious to a man he met in court named Euthyphro. Euthyphro is at court prosecuting his father for murder and states to Socrates “the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer” (5d). The problem with this definition is that it is restricting what could be pious to just this one action, which seems wrong. When Socrates explains this to Euthyphro, he then gives the definition “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (7). Although he answers in the way Socrates wants, the problem with this definition is that, as agreed between Socrates and Euthyphro, the gods are at war because of their different point of views, which shows that what may be pious and loved by one god could be the opposite to another. This then leads to Euthyphro next definition “the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is the impious” (9e).
Socrates is satisfied with this definition, but then asks “Is the pious being loved because it is pious, or is it pious because it being loved by the gods?” (10). In trying to understand this better, Socrates talks about different actions that can be acted upon or acted by objects, such as something carried and a carried thing, something seen and seen thing, etc. From Project Muse, S. Marc Cohen discusses Socrates argument with Euthyphro on this matter. To represent any action, Cohen refers to the Greek symbol “φ” pronounced as “fie” or “fee”.
When trying to understand the first part of Socrates’ question, “Is the pious being loved because it is pious”, it seems to ask if gods love the pious for being pious and for no other reason. Looking back into Cohen’s paper, putting it into context would be saying, “the gods φ pious because it is pious”. This is true. Although, in trying to find the true definition of piety, this doesn’t give you any new information. Saying the gods love pious things because they are pious doesn’t explain what the pious is, only that the gods love the pious for being what it is.
When trying to understand the second part of Socrates’ question, “is it pious because it being loved by the gods”, it asks if gods loving things make things pious. How this differs from the first part of the question by asking if gods loving things makes pious things pious. This seems to restrict the definition of piety to what the gods love, which is wrong. This also shows that we, as human beings who do not know what the gods love, are incapable of defining piety.
Looking at all things considered, the best that can be said in defining what makes pious acts pious can be easily generalized by Cohen’s last paragraph, “If a moral concept M (Piety) is such that there is an authority (us) whose judgment (our judgment) whether or not something falls under M is decisive and is rationally grounded (meaning to say that our reason makes sense and is down to earth), then ‘M’ cannot be defined in terms of that authority’s judgment.”
Wisdom
When talking to Euthyphro about the Athenians he says they “do not mind anyone they think clever, as long as he does not teach his own wisdom” (3c). With the situation of being indicted for “creating new gods and not believing in the old ones”, it appears that Socrates shared more than enough of his wisdom to alert people. But just how is Socrates wise? What is it about this old philosopher’s actions that make him stay on the wisdom side of knowledge?
Before concluding that Socrates isn’t clever, there must be an accurate definition to go by. An acceptable definition for clever, “showing self-interest and shrewdness in dealing with others”, can be used to show characteristics about Socrates. Socrates asks Euthyphro for the definition of piety. Instead of doubting Euthyphro claim of what he is doing is pious, Socrates asks him “what is the pious, and what is the impious” (5d). Socrates later goes back to a discarded argument and considers reevaluating it. “Either we were wrong when we agreed before or if we were right then, we are wrong now”(15c). Socrates admits being wrong in his and Euthyphro’s definition of piety, showing a lack of shrewdness in his motives. Although he may seem clever at first, his only motive is finding the truth and is even more eager to learn more.
So how does Socrates show himself to be wise besides not showing interest in any aspect of the argument? First wisdom must be defined… Wisdom: knowledge of what is just or true used to perform just actions. One example that shines is Socrates advice to Euthyphro about presenting his case. As a rebuttal to Euthyphro’s claim that he needs to get the courts’ attention first, Socrates replies, “They will listen if they think you show them well”(9c). Knowing to only present truth in front of a court, Socrates tells Euthyphro a piece of advice that gave himself no benefit. Another example that Socrates shows of being wise, albeit very general, is the questioning of Euthyphro’s definitions of piety. Even though Socrates “claims” to have no knowledge of piety, he does not at the same time completely accept any definition of piety Euthyphro throws at him. Socrates tests these definitions against his own wealth of knowledge to either support or refute them without any motive but to find the truth. This is shown eagerly by Socrates while further explaining the third definition of piety… S: It aims to benefit the object of its care? E: Of course S: Is piety then, which is the care of the gods, also to benefit the gods and make them better? Would you agree that when you do something pious you make some one of the gods better? E: By Zeus, no. S: Nor did I think this is what you mean – far from it…” (13 c) Even faced with the possibility that an answer may not be found, Socrates stays focused on finding the truth, showing him to be more wise than clever.
The Problem with Piety
Sibely Anan
Euthyphro’s third definition of piety states that piety is what is loved by all the gods. This definition does not work because it merely picks out what things are pious but does not tell what piety is. When he says, “what is dear to the gods is pious” (7), he says more about what the gods value than what piety is. Socrates doesn’t care about what the gods value – he’s on a quest for truth and wants a definition for piety. The quality, “god-loved,” does not define piety because qualities do not define. A quality is a small part in what it describes, but with or without that quality, the thing it describes will still exist. Socrates asks, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved?” (10) Mark Cohen suggests that Euthyphro does not completely understand Socrates’ question – he does not realize that he is being asked for a definition. Socrates specifically asks, “What is the pious?” (5d) then later asks for “that form that makes all pious actions pious” (6e). Euthyphro just picks out the things that are pious but he never answers why they are pious – what are the characteristics that make these actions pious?
So what, then, is piety? According to Euthyphro’s third definition it is what all the gods love but Socrates wants to figure out why the gods love it. The format of the question is peculiar, which is why Euthyphro must not have understood it. Cohen says that Socrates “hopes to get Euthyphro to affirm the first [that the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious] and deny the second [that the pious is pious because it is loved]” (pg 5, SDP). Imagine a situation where a person (x) likes diamond rings. Consider the question, “Is the diamond ring a diamond ring because x likes it?” The diamond ring will in fact be a diamond ring whether or not x likes it, or any number of diamond ring-liking people like it. “Diamond” and “ring” are both qualities of the object whether or not anyone likes it, so the reason for it being a diamond ring cannot be because it is liked (by x). Similarly, the reason for acts of piety being pious cannot be because they are liked by the gods if the gods like it because it is pious.
The definition of piety given by Euthyphro picks out what things are pious but doesn’t explain what piety is or why pious things are pious. It’s like having an electronics store (i.e. Best Buy) that sells every electronic object in existence, and maybe it does sell every possible electronic. But when someone asks what an electronic object is, the answer is not “the stuff you get at Best Buy.” The definition of an electronic is something that runs on electricity or energy. The definition of piety would be similar in that it actually says what piety is, rather than picking out pious acts. The definition should help pick out the pious acts, not just directly pick them out. Socrates has not found the proper knowledge for understanding piety yet because now he now knows only what things are pious. Perhaps neither of them ever reach a conclusion because piety isn’t something that can be measured on a scale – it is judged based on opinion rather than facts. There are two existing types of judgment: one that can be measured and one that cannot. The meaning of piety varies because its extent is defined by the individual and cannot be measured by any scale.
Post a Comment