Aristotle’s aforementioned premises are as follows: First: Humans must have a function, or else they would be idle, which is absurd. Aristotle confronts the reader with a question of whether or not humans perhaps have no overall function aside from a their chosen occupation within society, but implies that this is not indicative of nature; Terence Irwin used the word “idle” in his 1985 translation when wording this separation of Aristotle’s question. Second: Each human body part has a function, so the whole human must likewise have a function. This premise appears to jive with Aristotle’s argument that many goods serve higher goods within a hierarchy (Aristotle, Book I). Aristotle conjured the concept of a hierarchy to better consider the functions of body parts; each body part serves a function that plays a larger part within a different function, and so it seems that the largest unit, the human body itself, must have a function.
Instead of describing a pious or impious act, Euthyphro has given a clear definition of what piety is, just like Socrates asked him to. Piety is what is dear to the gods. However, Socrates refutes this definition of Euthyphro as well. Earlier, Socrates and Euthyphro had stated that Gods were in a state of discord, in odds with each other, and that they were at enmity with each other. Now Socrates asks Euthyphro, “What subject of difference would make us angry and hostile to each other if we were unable to come to a decision?” Socrates claims that subjects such as the just and the unjust, the beautiful and the ugly, the good and the bad are certain subjects that would cause differences between them when they were unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion and would cause Socrates and Euthyphro as well as other men to become hostile towards one another.
For Aristotle, Plato was a realist and Protagoras was a relativist. Essentially, he regards both theories as equally defective. J.D.G Evans attempts to analyze why Aristotle deems these theories inadequate and what position is left for Aristotle to take if both of the alternatives are defective. Repeatedly, Aristotle begins his accounts by criticizing the “answers of his predecessors” and, while there appears to be legitimate reasons to discredit them, he fails to provide an adequate alternate. The following passage from Eudemian Ethics (1235b 13-18) allows us to better comprehend Aristotle’s impression of philosophy, which in turn leads to a better understanding of how he reviews and resolves the aforementioned problem: We must adopt a line of argument which will both best explain to us the views held about these matters and will resolve the difficulties and contradictions; and we shall achieve this if we show that the conflicting views are held with good reason.
On the other hand, the other possibility is that there is no definite definition of piety that is common to all people. This may be supported by the Socrates’ stand point in the arguments. Euthyphro gave several remarkable arguments that somewhat seemed to be the meaning of piety. Socrates constantly negated his arguments by providing logical evidences but Socrates never gave his own view of what is piety. This may suggest that Socrates, too, has no definite understanding of what is piety, and only has ideas of what is not the essence of piety.
In philosophy, it is presumed that the phenomenon of the mind has no form or extension in time and space; basically, the mind and body are separate. Therefore, this dualism contains a set of ideas regarding the disjunctive relationship between the two. Forms are the perfect archetypes and they are ageless and constant. Plato suggests the two world theory, being (forms) and becoming (empirical). Our only admittance to the constant is through our rational thought.
According to what Meletus is saying, Socrates is guilty, yet not guilty and therefore, does not deserve punishment. Clearly, Meletus does not understand what he is talking about, and he doesn’t understand the implications of the statements he has been making towards the
Despite having been taught my Plato Aristotle had a very different view on the theory of forms and the soul he completely rejected Plato’s theory of forms. Plato seemed to look at the mystical and was concerned with the ultimate reality Aristotle’s view was more down to earth he seemed to have a need for a more scientific approach in searching for answers in regards to human nature, forms and the soul he redefines soul and form in a completely different way to Plato’s teachings. He believed that ‘forms’ do not exist independently of the physical but that the physical and the form where in fact united, like form was the spirit of the physical so both out body and our soul where parts of our nature not just the soul, he came to understand that our world was made up of many
Meanwhile, McCloskey believes that the only conclusion we can reach is that something caused the universe to exist. From reading his article, I feel that he does not formulate a valid argument as to how the power exists or how it created the universe. He goes onto to describe any creator that could exist is either a powerful being or a muddler and is not a god, but an evil spirit or a being that had very disastrous consequences due to their limitations ( McCloskey, pg.64). McCloskey closes his argument of the cosmological argument by stating that belief in either is not a source of strength or security ( McCloskey,
The difficulty with holding this view is that this idea of the soul is not an entirely fair one. He appears to want to miscategorise this ‘essence' as some mysterious substance. Firstly he uses the OED and not the philosophical encyclopaedia for his definition which lack technical accuracy. This undermines the credibility of his starting assumption. Secondly Dawkins' view of the world is limited a priori.
Socrates continued his point in saying that “an action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious” (Euthyphro, 7a). However, Socrates also points out that gods, just like people, can have their differences and disagreements about anything. Therefore, there could be no unification in what is right and wrong, good and bad, or pious and impious. Again, we see Socrates’ doubt in having more than one god. If the gods can have their disputes about piety and impiety, then how would we ever know what exactly is the right course of action?