Have you ever wondered what two ancient philosophers could possibly agree on? Well, in the case of Socrates and Euthyphro, it turns out that they do find common ground on the topic of holiness. However, their agreement is short-lived as they quickly diverge on the definition of what is truly holy. In this blog post, we will explore the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro and delve into their differing perspectives on the nature of holiness. Join us as we journey through the ancient world of philosophy and uncover what these two great minds had to say about this timeless topic.
What Do Socrates And Euthyphro Agree On
Socrates and Euthyphro both agree that there must be a standard or form by which everything holy is holy and everything unholy is unholy. They also agree that there are certain actions that can be considered holy, such as punishing those who commit injustices. However, their agreement ends there as they quickly diverge on the definition of holiness itself.
Introduction To Socrates And Euthyphro
Socrates and Euthyphro were two ancient Greek philosophers who engaged in a dialogue about the concept of piety or virtue. The conversation took place outside the court of Athens where Socrates was facing charges of impiety, while Euthyphro was there to prosecute his own father for unintentionally killing a murderous hired hand. Socrates was intrigued by Euthyphro’s confidence in being able to prosecute his own father for such a serious charge, and he urged Euthyphro to teach him what holiness is. Throughout their dialogue, Socrates used his “Socratic” style of questioning to challenge Euthyphro’s thinking and to try and establish a definitive meaning for the word piety. Despite their differing opinions on the definition of holiness, Socrates and Euthyphro agreed that there must be a standard or form by which everything holy is holy and everything unholy is unholy.
The Initial Agreement On Holiness
Before their disagreement on the definition of holiness, Socrates and Euthyphro initially agree that there must be a standard or form by which everything holy is holy and everything unholy is unholy. This means that there must be some objective measure or criteria for determining what is considered holy and what is not. Additionally, they both agree that certain actions can be considered holy, such as punishing those who commit injustices. However, they do not agree on what makes these actions holy or what constitutes holiness in general. This initial agreement highlights the importance of having a clear understanding and definition of key concepts, especially in matters of morality and ethics.
The Divergence On The Definition Of Holiness
Socrates and Euthyphro’s discussion on the definition of holiness takes a central stage in their dialogue. Euthyphro initially defines holiness as what is loved by the gods, but Socrates quickly points out that this definition is flawed because it does not provide an overarching definition for holiness. Euthyphro then offers another definition, stating that holiness is what is loved by all the gods and what is hated by all the gods. However, Socrates argues that this definition presents a dilemma – whether something is holy because it is loved by the gods or if it is loved by the gods because it is holy.
Socrates uses an analogy of the word “carried” to explain his dilemma, stating that something is called carried because it is being carried, not because it possesses a quality called carried. Similarly, he argues that something is loved by the gods because it is holy, and not the other way around. This argument leads to a circular definition of piety, which Socrates rejects.
Socrates then suggests that piety belongs to the genus of justice and asks Euthyphro if what is holy is also just. However, this suggestion does not help in defining piety because there are other actions that are also morally good and just. According to Socrates, there must be something that distinguishes piety from those other actions that are also just, and his suggestions hit a dead end as far as defining piety is concerned.
Socrates’ Critique Of Euthyphro’s Definition
Throughout their dialogue, Socrates critiques each of Euthyphro’s definitions of holiness. He argues that each definition fails to capture the essence of what makes an action or thing holy. For example, when Euthyphro defines holiness as prosecuting wrongdoers, Socrates points out that this is just an example of a holy action, not a definition of holiness itself.
Socrates also challenges Euthyphro’s definition of holiness as what is loved by the gods. He argues that this definition leads to a problematic circularity: are actions holy because the gods love them, or do the gods love actions because they are holy? Socrates suggests that actions have an intrinsic property that makes them holy, rather than being holy simply because they are loved by the gods.
Similarly, when Euthyphro defines holiness as saying and doing what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice, Socrates shows how this definition is just a disguised version of Euthyphro’s previous definition. He argues that this definition still fails to capture the essence of holiness.
Euthyphro’s Response To Socrates’ Critique
When Socrates critiques Euthyphro’s definition of holiness as persecuting religious offenders, Euthyphro concedes that there are many other holy deeds that do not involve persecution. He then suggests that what is holy is what is approved of by all the gods. However, Socrates argues that this cannot be the case since what is holy determines what gets approved of by the gods, not the other way around. Euthyphro then proposes that holiness is a kind of justice concerned with looking after the gods, but Socrates points out that the gods do not need our help. Finally, Euthyphro suggests that holiness is a kind of trading with the gods, where we give them sacrifices and they grant our prayers. However, Socrates argues that this definition is similar to saying that holiness is what is approved of by the gods, which does not solve the problem. Despite their disagreement on the definition of holiness, both Socrates and Euthyphro agree on the importance of finding a standard or form by which holy and unholy actions can be distinguished.
The Implications Of Their Debate On Holiness
The debate between Socrates and Euthyphro on the definition of holiness has significant implications. Euthyphro’s first two definitions were criticized by Socrates for being circular and insufficient, respectively. Euthyphro’s third definition, which states that holiness is what is loved by all the gods and what is hated by all the gods, leads to the important question of which comes first: godly love or the impious. Socrates argues that piety is distinct from god-love and attempts to prove it by clarifying how things affect or change other things. He explains that piety affects things to have “the quality of being loved by all the gods,” but it does not actually show us how or why the thing became holy.
This debate has implications for our understanding of morality and religion. If holiness is simply what is loved by the gods, then morality becomes arbitrary and subject to the whims of divine preference. However, if there is a standard or form by which everything holy is holy, then morality becomes objective and independent of divine preference. This has important implications for how we understand the relationship between religion and justice. If justice is derived from religion, as Euthyphro claims, then justice becomes arbitrary and dependent on divine preference. However, if religion is derived from justice, as Socrates claims, then justice becomes objective and independent of religious tradition.
In conclusion, the debate between Socrates and Euthyphro on the definition of holiness has important implications for our understanding of morality and religion. By questioning the relationship between godly love and holiness, Socrates challenges us to think critically about the nature of morality and the role of religion in shaping our ethical beliefs.
