He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
In Plato’s The Republic, there exists a struggle between the characters of Socrates and Thrasymachus to find the correct definition of what justice is. Thrasymachus, being a Sophist, expressed his views on justice in a manner of rash sequences whereby Socrates closely followed behind with his own counter-arguments. These counter-arguments effectively exposed weaknesses in Thrasymachus’s argument for justice, and further crippled it entirely. By outlining and explaining Thrasymachus’s views on justice, I will argue two things; first that the weakness in his argument comes from only himself in abandoning his method. Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil.
Rhonda Kirker Ancient Philosophy Book 10 of the Republic As we grow up we are constantly learning what is right and what is wrong, and understanding the good and the bad. Different cultures have ways of teaching morality and giving their people a good foundation of ethics. I will be explaining how in Book ten of the Republic, Socrates recounts the Myth of Er and uses it for part of a larger argument. This argument that Socrates embraces is based on understanding good and applying the good to everyday life. Earlier in the Republic Socrates explains how an ideal society consist of three main classes of people, producers, warrior’s and the gauardians/rulers.
He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization. But he also states that Euthyphro’s definition has flaws because the gods would disagree on what is considered pleasing. Socrates’ case is that the gods are very irrational when it comes to arguments and disagreements. Normal rational people would find answers and come to a settlement on the correct answer, but when it comes to the gods any slight disagreement causes them to become enemies and angry towards each other. Socrates goes on to
|Socrates says, “Come then, let us examine our words. The thing and|Socrates has found a flaw in Euthyphro’s claim that whatever the gods like | |the person that are dear to the gods are holy, and the thing and |must be holy. Simply by stating that sometimes the gods disagree about what | |the person that are hateful to the gods are unholy; and the two |they like, Socrates has logically shown that this can’t be the way to judge
Character Flaw: Even though Oedipus is praised by his people for being a responsible and honest king, he possesses a major character flaw in his attitude towards the gods which causes the tragic torture he faces in the end. His incestuous ways are the outcome of anger from the gods for being intelligent and because the leader of the state is plagued with such a flaw the state must suffer for the wronging of the leader. Belief: This sense of contamination ultimately leads the gods to cleanse the state, household, and Oedipus by revealing the flaw to everyone and Oedipus at the same time. He is driven to the belief that he can control his own fate, and not leave it up to the gods. Lack of Belief: The people of the land are religious and live there lives according to what messengers and oracles tell them.
They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
First, when Euthyphro defines piety as “doing as I am doing”, Euthyphro is meaning that holiness is prosecuting religious offenders. Euthyphro feels that in prosecuting his father that he is following the example of the gods, and particularly Zeus, the most just if all gods. Socrates seems to find the first definition unsatisfying, he points out that the gods often quarrel, so what is agreeable to one might not be agreeable to all. Socrates then asks Euthyphro to again define piety. The second argument, Socrates has is that piety and impiety are opposites, and that the gods are always in a state of discord.
A last example of the Greek cultural value of being devoted to the gods is made visible by the reason that Oedipus is accursed. Creon finally tells Oedipus to “not seek to be master in everything” (Sophocles 470). Because Oedipus relied so heavily on himself, instead of being loyal the gods, he greatly suffered. Because Sophocles wrote the play so that Oedipus would suffer for not being loyal,
This back and forth notion in pursuit of a valid definition of piety is a single example of searching for understanding and wisdom in a well-examined life. In the Apology, Socrates attempts to instruct the jurors on justice rather than plead his innocence. By doing this, he is examining the jurors’ notion of what “just” is in an attempt to be acquitted through teaching rather than coercion. After Socrates has been convicted and in the process of being sentenced, he claims that asking him to give up philosophy