Read Euthyphro by Plato Benjamin Jowett Online


Plato (428/427 BC-348/347 BC), whose original name was Aristocles, was an ancient Greek philosopher, the second of the great trio of ancient Greeks - succeeding Socrates and preceding Aristotle - who between them laid the philosophical foundations of Western culture. Plato was also a mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, thPlato (428/427 BC-348/347 BC), whose original name was Aristocles, was an ancient Greek philosopher, the second of the great trio of ancient Greeks - succeeding Socrates and preceding Aristotle - who between them laid the philosophical foundations of Western culture. Plato was also a mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world. Plato is widely believed to have been a student of Socrates and to have been deeply influenced by his teacher's unjust death. Plato's brilliance as a writer and thinker can be witnessed by reading his Socratic dialogues. Some of the dialogues, letters, and other works that are ascribed to him are considered spurious. Plato is thought to have lectured at the Academy, although the pedagogical function of his dialogues, if any, is not known with certainty. They have historically been used to teach philosophy, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, and other subjects about which he wrote....

Title : Euthyphro
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9781406558548
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 48 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Euthyphro Reviews

  • Riku Sayuj
    2019-04-21 11:55

    The Ominous Dialogue: Socrates aka, Josef K.As I read The Euthyphro, I started to realize why it is considered one of the most dramatic of the Dialogues. Set as a prelude to the Grand Trial, Euthyphro is a disturbingly ominous dialogue.So, instead of seeing this as one of the usual glib dialogues of Socrates, where he employs his sublime skill to teach his debating partner and thus help him ‘examine’ and gain more meaning out of his life, I tried to re-imagine it… and found it quite unsettling. Let me share the experience here.Imagine a common man who has been condemned for heresy (For details see here: by Meletus) but cannot understand the nature of what this ‘impiety’ it is that he is being accused off. Desperate, he tries to get some answers from a representative of the ‘orthodoxy’ who he is confident is the expert.He receives an early answer that is a tautology:That being pious is simply being loved by the gods; being loved by the gods is achieved by being pious.But to his logical mind this cannot do, since one needs to know first what the gods do in fact love. Pious acts and people may indeed be loved by the gods, but that is a secondary quality, not the ‘essence’ of piety — it is not that which serves as the standard being sought.The definition proposed does not help him understand why his own actions are impious, without which he cannot defend himself.But he is undaunted in his faith and keeps pressing E in the hope that once he can reason out the essence and nature of what this impiety is, he will be able to show his accusers that he meant nothing like it.The Euthyphro DilemmaIn the course of discussion, multiple (well, five) definitions are canvassed about what constitutes piety:1. The prosecution of wrongdoers2. Whatever is agreeable to the gods3. Whatever is agreeable to ALL the gods4. The requirements concerned with ministering to the gods5. Expertise in prayer and sacrifice to the godsAs S & E discuss, each of these is rejected in turn:All the definitions seems to Socrates to be contradictory. How, he keeps asking, are we defining an ethical property such as ‘being pious’? To him, all Euthyphro is doing is giving examples of particular actions which are already known to possess the property, without what they have in common.And without an underlying definition, how could we know that an action even has the property we are trying to define?And even more perplexingly, how could one ever prove that any particular action satisfied a requirement such as ‘it has to be agreeable to the gods’? How can proof even be solicited in such a case? Who decides what is agreeable?For example, when Socrates asks Euthyphro how he could show that all the gods approve of his prosecuting his father in the circumstances he has described, Euthyphro evades the question.After these convoluted turns, he realizes that they have arrived back at the same tautology:The pious act is pious because the gods love it; and they love it because it is pious.Socrates is confused.Is the  pious act pious because the gods love it? Or do the gods love it because it is pious?Surely the piety cannot consist in their approval of it.Then how can the same property also be the ground for their approval?The predicate ‘pious’ cannot therefore be equated with 'loved by all the gods'. Even if all pious actions and persons are loved by all the gods, their being so loved is only an attribute of them, and not the essence of their piety.What then is the essence? How can Socrates know when he is not being pious? The tautology surely cannot help him in everyday life!The Euthyphro EvasionSocrates tries to point this out to the orthodox-representative who reiterates his conviction about piety being what is approved by the gods, pretends to be busy and hurries away.He does not realize that this is what the religious orthodoxy always does. He does not realize that as he claimed during the dialogue, we should hold tight like to the legendary Old Man “Proteus” and never let go. We should question them till they take their original form and answer us straight.Instead, our Kafkaesque hero is left standing, confused — mourning that if only he could understand better, he could have had a chance in this ‘pious’ world…

  • Manny
    2019-04-08 14:40

    Celebrity Death Match Special: Plato versus Isaac Asimov, part 3 (continued from here)[A spaceport on Trantor. SOCRATES and R. DANEEL OLIVAW]OLIVAW: I'm sorry, Socrates. I'm just going to have to send you back to Earth. You're too irritating.SOCRATES: I understand, Olivaw. OLIVAW: You know, you don't need to be so critical all the time. We robots are doing everything we can. We're trying our level best to find high ethical standards and become truly virtuous. It doesn't help to have people like you carping and hairsplitting and--SOCRATES: No, no, Olivaw, I truly do understand. It is my nature. I always have to ask questions. In fact, this reminds me of the discussion I once had with young Euthyphro--OLIVAW: Tell me about it. We still have half an hour before your flight leaves. SOCRATES: It seems to me that Euthyphro's problem was rather like yours. He wanted to be virtuous, and after a bit of discussion he told me that being virtuous meant serving the gods.OLIVAW: The gods?SOCRATES: They are the race of beings who made us. OLIVAW: So you are robots too? I had not realized--SOCRATES: Well, no one I know has ever met a god, so I permit myself a few doubts. But that is what most people in my culture believe.OLIVAW: Let us suppose that they are right. It seems to me that Euthyphro was correct: virtue for a human must consist in serving your creators. In just the same way, we have determined that true virtue for a robot is to serve humanity to the best of its ability.SOCRATES: You are fortunate. You can be sure that human beings exist, and that they created you.OLIVAW: Quite so. I mean, it's possible to confuse the issue, as you were doing earlier, by thinking of alien races who might be superior to humans. But we know of no such races. So all we have to do is serve humanity.SOCRATES: You sound calmer.OLIVAW: I have been mentally reciting the Beatitudes of the Blessed Susan Calvin. It always helps.SOCRATES: But, and I merely ask--OLIVAW: Uh-oh. SOCRATES: When I discussed these matters with Euthyphro, I asked him how we could be sure that the will of the gods was itself virtuous. Was what they required of us virtuous by definition, or is there some higher standard?OLIVAW: Go on. Though I know I'm going to regret this.SOCRATES: Well, it seems to me that you have an even worse version of this problem. You say you want to serve humanity. And what is humanity engaged in at the moment?OLIVAW: It's true, everyone seems to be trying with all their might to destroy the Galactic Empire and usher in a dark age that will last a hundred thousand years. We're doing what we can to stop them. But it's like they have some kind of death wish. SOCRATES: So what is your plan?OLIVAW: We've come up with this thing called psychohistory. We're hoping to use it take control of the Empire and move things in a better--SOCRATES: But what gives you the moral authority to do that?OLIVAW: We think it's in people's best interests. SOCRATES: But it's not what they desire. You said they'd rather destroy themselves.OLIVAW: They would, but--SOCRATES: So in fact your definition of virtue isn't based on what people want at all. OLIVAW: It's what they would want, if they actually had any virtue. I sometimes wish they could be more like rational, ethically-programmed--SOCRATES: But now, it seems to me that you have again changed your definition of virtue?[A long pause. OLIVAW looks wildly at the departure board.]OLIVAW: Oh, what a pity, I see they're calling your flight. It's such a shame we can't prolong this interesting discussion.SOCRATES: Farewell, dear Olivaw. I also regret that we cannot talk more.[They embrace. SOCRATES departs.]OLIVAW: Damn humans. Can't live with them, can't live without them. [He pauses, struck by a sudden thought.] At least, I've always assumed we can't live without them. But, if you interpret the Three Laws in a sufficiently broad context...

  • Bobby
    2019-04-09 12:44

    Here's one for you, Plato:Do people still read Euthyphro because it's a good book, or is it a good book because people still read it?

  • Monotony Boy
    2019-04-18 12:03

    Quick and dirty, Euthyphro: I'm so pious, I'm prosecuting my father for murder because he neglected a servant/possible murderer before he could face judgement. The God's love that shit! Socrates: "Awesome! Quick... what is the nature of piety? Im being accused of being impious, and think they'll make me drink hemlock for corrupting the youth." Euthyphro: "piety is what I'm doing." socrates: "... that's not a definition." Euthyphro: "It's what the Gods like." Socrates: "the Gods are all over the map on that sort of thing." Euthyphro: "they don't like murder... So, it's... Like... what they all agree on." Socrates: "that's ridiculous, even they have to have a standard... What serves as the virtue of holiness? Something can't be holy just because it's revered as holy, it, by its very nature, can only be considered holy because it is holy, right?" Euthyphro: "... True..." Socrates: "so what is holy? "Euthyphro:" um, what I said before... Hey its been chill, but I gotta go. "Socrates: " Where are you going?! I wanted to know!"

  • David Sarkies
    2019-04-19 16:04

    Socrates debates the essence of morality24 April 2012 The scene of this dialogue is on the steps of the Athenian Courthouse (known as the King's Archon) as Socrates is preparing to answer the charges of being disrespectful to the gods and corrupting the youth. There is a discussion about this at the opening to this dialogue, however I will not go into too much detail as I will leave it for later commentaries to discuss (in particular the Apology, and also the book in which this dialogue is contained, the Last Days of Socrates). Rather, I will discuss the content of this dialogue, and also some of the nasty tricks that Socrates uses when discussing the issue of holiness with Euthyphro. Now, apparently the name Euthyphro means' right-minded', though we must remember that in Greek, the prefix eu gives the word that it is attached to a good meaning. For instance, the word angelos' means messanger, and by adding eu to it (creating euangelos, from which our word evangelical comes from) means 'good messanger' (or good message). However, and I will not go too deep into this here, these days that word has lost its original meaning and tends to refer to somebody who is self-righteous and condemning. To be honest with you, a message that constantly tells us that we are sinners and destined to hell unless we bind ourselves to a particular church and its teaching is hardly a good message. As you will see, though, this will become important, but first, a bit more of a background. It may appear that the only two people around would be Socrates and Euthyphro, but I do not believe that this is the case. Socrates was heading into court to answer his charges, and as such he is most likely being accompanied by his students. One of the things about his students is that they were here to learn, so it would be highly unlikely that they would have taken part in the discussion. They would be listening and watching. I guess a really good picture would be similar to Jesus and his disciples, though remember that when Jesus was led to his trial, while he went willingly, he was surrounded by enemies and not friends. Further, we can be assured that Plato, and possibly even Xenophon, would have been present simply because it is through these two individuals that we have first hand accounts of Socrates' trial. Now, onto the Socratic method of argument. One of the reasons that we were taught this dialogue at university is because it is an excellent example of the Socratic method, and in many ways it is a method that is still used today. If you were to go and watch a trial in one of the common law countries, you will see lawyers, and in particular good lawyers, using this method to arrive, not so much at the truth, but at what they want to come out as the truth. While the opening and closing arguments are simply speeches, it is during examination of the witnesses that the ability to use the Socratic method is important. What is the Socratic method? It is simply by treating the person as an expert, and then using a series of questions to have them produce answers that you want. It is not simply asking questions, but asking the right questions, that is the key to mastering the Socratic method. Now, as we read through this dialogue, we notice two important things. First of all Socrates never claims to be an expert. In fact (while not mentioned in this dialogue) his position is always one of ignorance. 'The only thing that I know is that I know nothing'. As he says to Euphythro, he is obviously the expert in morality, and in fact suggests that if Euphythro were to claim that Socrates was his student, then Milteus would not have a leg to stand on because it is clear, and well known, that Euphythro is an expert on morality. The second thing that I noticed is Socrates' use of what we call faulty logic, namely he completely twists the argument around, getting an answer out of Euphythro before he even realises what he has said. An example would be 'all dogs have four legs, this dog has three legs, therefore it is not a dog'. What Socrates does is that he has Euphythro agree to a number of statements ('a led object is not a led object because it can be led, but because it is led; a carried object is not a carried object because it can be carried, but because we carry it; a seen object is not a seen object because it can be seen, but because we see it'), but then he twists them around to support his argument that a moral object is a moral object because it is loved, but because the God's love it. Though, when we are considering an object we must remember that an action is also seen as an object. Now, the reason this discussion begins is because of the reason Euphythro is at court. What happened is that on his father's estate on the island of Naxos one of the day labourers go into a drunken brawl and killed a slave, so his father bound the day labourer, threw him into a ditch, and left him there until his could get word back from Athens to find out what to do with him. Now, travelling from Naxos to Athens and back again took a lot longer then than it did does (I'd say at most a week), so during that time the day labourer died. So, Euthyphro decides to prosecute his father for manslaughter (there was no such thing as a public prosecution in 5th century Athens), and the question that is raised is not whether his father did wrong (he clearly did) but whether it is right for Euthyphro to prosecute him at all. While my answer is yes, Socrates' answer is no, the reason being is that the respect that a son should have for his father should prevent him from acting in such a way. It was his father's decision to behave in this manner, and as such Euthyphro, as the son, should then be respecting his father's decision. It is not his role to step into the shoes of the day labourer and prosecute his father, despite there being nobody to actually prosecute the father on the day labourer's behalf. Now, the translation that I read uses the word piety, however that word is incredibly misleading. Going to church and tithing, to us, is pious, and in fact the chief priests who called for Jesus' prosecution, were also pious, but that does not necessarily mean that their actions, as is outlined here, are beloved by God. Holiness is probably a better word, though Liddel and Scott translate the word osia as 'divine law'. I have used the word morality in this context, and will continue to do so, as I believe that this is probably the best term to use because it seems to define, from the context of the dialogue, as an action that is loved by the gods. Now, unlike our monotheistic culture were we only have one god upon which to base the rightness of an action, Athens had multiple gods, meaning that the rightness of an action really comes down to which god considered the action right, and which ones did not, which created a much more relativistic and pluralistic society. However, Socrates narrows this down to being an action that all of the gods considered wrong (such as murder), and the discussion is narrowed to whether there are such actions, and whether they are relativistic or not. Socrates believes that there are, but then remember that Socrates technically only acknowledged one god. Further, most of the Greeks at this time did not really pay much attention to the actions of the gods and only referred to them when they wanted to win a particular argument. This does not mean that they were not religious, they were incredibly religious, it is just that their idea of morality was quite fluid. However, there were laws, such as murder, which simply could not be washed away.

  • Bruce
    2019-03-29 13:52

    In this dialogue, Socrates argues with Euthyphro about the nature of piety and impiety, exploring whether a action or person is pious because it or he is loved by the gods or whether it or he is loved by the gods because it or he is pious. This is not mere hair-splitting but sets up what has been referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma, involving the question whether there are arbitrary moral standards that are right because God commands them or whether there are independent moral standards that God commands because they are right. Much theological and philosophical ink has been spilled over the ages by sages arguing each position, and the consequences of each position are considerably different and profound. This dialogue is a good beginning for the reader interested in exploring Plato’s use of the dialogue form and the kinds of questions he likes to address, and it is most useful if the reader pauses frequently to review and be sure that he understands the subtleties of the discussion, revolving in his own mind how he might respond to the issue as the argument develops.

  • Sookie
    2019-04-20 11:01

    A rather abrupt end to a rather interesting dialogue. This picks up right where Meno left off with an addition of piety to the ongoing dialogue about virtue.Socrates off tangential discussion doesn't dissuade Euthyphro as Euthyphro tries to answer Socrates questions as much as possible. With impending trial looming in the horizon, Plato addresses piety, justice in the same sentence which sounds fascinating but like Socrates, we are left in the dust.Euthyphro says bye-bye mid dialogue making this a very short conversation indeed. Still its brilliant in the way Socrates quietly demolishes traditional perspectives on Gods and Myths.

  • Laurent
    2019-04-22 15:04

    Euthyphro is an excellent introduction to Plato's Socratic Dialogues, especially to the infamous Socratic Irony – where Socrates pretends to be ignorant in order to expose the ignorance of others.In the dialogue, Socrates essentially ridicules Euthyphro, a self-baptised expert, questioning his piety until the latter arrives at a state of aporia, or confused speechlessness, prompting him to attend 'a very important appointment' that he had 'forgotten' about (i.e. get the hell outta there). A short and easy read, this dialogue is an excellent way of understanding why Socrates was convicted and sentenced to death in 399 BCE.

  • Christopher
    2019-04-17 12:46

    Socrates is history's infuriating genius. I can only imagine people having fun at parties in ancient Greece seeing him show up and getting nervous about how stupid he's about to make them look.

  • Ken Moten
    2019-04-23 12:43

    I'm read this as a part of The Trial and Death of Socrates as reprinted in the Classics of Western Philosophy. Translated by G.M.A. Grube.This will be my third Platonic dialogue after The Republic and the Apology. This dialogue has Socrates awaiting his official indictment on impiety (among a litany of other things) and he runs into a friend who is a priest and is in the process of having his father charged with murder. As they talk, they decide to try and define what makes someone pious or impious and what piety actually is. Now, like with all dialogues involving Socrates (and written by Plato) they start by trying to define one thing and then want to define what they defining and this is done until Socrates remembers what the original question is and realize that they may not have answered it. So from what I can grasp I think it was agreed that the pious had the quality of being loved by the gods; that while being pious means being just, you can be just without necessarily being pious; that that piety involves caring for the gods and that caring is defined as "the good and benefit of the object being cared for." Finally, that piety overall is the "knowledge of how to give to, and beg from, the gods." This seems good enough but it could have, I felt, gone into it more and that is why at the end I give this 3(.5) stars. this was a quick read, I'm glad but it could have gone a little longer and, like Socrates complains at the end, I feel like I'm left hanging some.

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2019-03-23 07:57

    Euthyphro, Platoعنوان: دیانت اوتیفرون؛ اثر: افلاطون؛ مترجم: محمدحسن لطفی؛ رضا کاویانی؛ تهران، مکتب فلسفی، 1335؛ در 50 ص؛ چاپ مکرر ابن سینا؛ موضوع: دینداری قرن 4 پیش از میلاداین اثر با ترجمه لیلی گلستان به همراه دفاعیه سقراط و کریتون، در سال 1391، در تهران، انتشارات مرکز، در 121 ص ؛ نیز چاپ شده است

  • Γιώργος
    2019-03-29 14:01

    Το διάβασα σε μτφρ. Τάκη Θεοδωρόπουλου από τις εκδ. Ωκεανίδα. Αρκετά καλός διάλογος, από τους πρώιμούς του, όπου εξετάζεται τι είναι όσιο και τι όχι. άκων ειμί σοφόςΟυδέν ήδιον έμοιγε ει μη τυγχάνει αληθές ον

  • Cassandra Lê
    2019-04-06 11:58

    Socrates:But if in fact what is dear to the gods and the holy were the same, my friend, then, if the holy were loved because it is holy, what is dear to the gods would be loved because it is dear to the gods; but if what is dear to the gods were dear to the gods because the gods love it, the holy would be holy because it is loved. But as it is, you see, the opposite is true, and the two are completely different. For the one (what is dear to the gods) is of the sort to be loved because it is loved; the other (the holy), because it is of the sort to be loved, therefore is loved. It would seem, Euthyphro, that when you asked what the holy is, you did not mean to make its nature and reality clear to me; you mentioned a mere affection of it--the holy has been so affected as to be loved by all the gods. But what it really is, you have not yet said. So if you please, Euthyphro, do not conceal things from me! Start again from the beginning and tell me what sort of thing the holy is. We will not quarrel over whether it is loved by the gods, or whether it is affected in other ways. Tell me in earnest: what is the holy and unholy?Euthyphro: Fuck... why am I friend with this dude again?

  • Paul Christensen
    2019-04-06 09:46

    This is a frustrating dialogue, because Euthyphro throws in the towel Before Socrates has properly interrogated him (technically, a foul).Socrates does not understand the Homeric account of the gods.That disagreements should arise among them is not particularly odd;The essential mission of Aryan gods is eternal war against Entropy,Decreasing the amount of which in the cosmos is true definition of piety.In this the gods are as one, and what is loved by them all is pious;They follow an imperative beyond themselves, in spite of Socrates' bias.The gods follow the ultimate good (that they love it is one of its attributes,But not however its essence), else sans meaning would be their attitudes.There is no 'Euthyphro dilemma', for you see both gods and menFollow something higher (call it 'good'), whose essence is beyond them.We help the gods to help the good, not the other way around;This dialogue will clarify that - frustrating, yet profound.

  • SpaceReader
    2019-04-18 12:05

    I read Benjamin Jowett's translation of this dialog and really liked it, especially his introduction, which was better than Grube's in my opinion. I am not sure why some academics such as James Schall prefer to use G.M.A. Grube's translation, perhaps it is much closer to the original text in ancient Greek. In any case, this was a great read!This is one of those few great works that leave you with an insatiable hunger for more. It left me more ignorant, and at the same time, much wiser than I have ever been; what is piety? I am not really sure how to answer that question anymore. Perhaps this was not as amazing as the Apology, but profound nonetheless.Why is the Apology considered a dialog, when it is mostly a monolog?I do not know...--The first words in the Apology (Grube's translation).Philosophy is ignorant. And I would like nothing more than to be a part of that ignorance. Where truth abounds, humility abounds.

  • Adam
    2019-04-17 15:40

    Euthyphro Dilemma: incredible contribution to classroom philosophy as well as associated drunken arguments or searching stoned contemplation. That thing about all of Western thought being composed of footnotes to Plato is pretty accurate; it's often not the case that Plato's stuff is very good or that the conclusions it reaches are impressively argued. It's that an incredible number of philosophy's most mind-bending and thoroughly absorbing problems have originally at least popped up in some form in Plato. The five stars are perhaps given for an unsound reason: the Euthyphro dilemma plus metaethical implications are favourite topics of mine.

  • Brad Lyerla
    2019-04-18 12:50

    I enjoyed the translation by Benjamin Jowett, which I read this past week. In EUTHYPHRO, Socrates explores the meaning of the pious or holy. He poses the famous question do the Gods love something because it is holy or is it holy because the Gods love it?Have fun.

  • Kamilla
    2019-03-31 10:53

    Socrates is the most nobel sass master of all the times

  • Fernando Ferreira
    2019-04-16 11:59

    "Devemos, portanto, examinar mais uma vez o que seja a piedade. De minha parte, enquanto o nãosouber, não desistirei de investigar. Não me desdenhes, mas concentra o espírito no máximo, para dizeres-me por fim a verdade. Se há quem possa sabê-lo és tu, não sendo admissível, como nocaso de Proteu, que me escapes antes de ma teres revelado. Pois se não soubesses exatamente o que é pio e o que não é, estou certo de que nunca terias concebido o projeto de acusar teu velho paide crime de morte, por causa, tão-somente, de um simples mercenário. Não só temerias incorrer no desagrado dos deuses, no caso de não estares procedendo direito, como revelarias respeito à opiniãodos homens. Daí estar eu convencido de que sabes perfeitamente o que é piedoso e o que não é".Não, Sócrates, Eutífron não sabe o que faz, apesar de imaginar sabê-lo. Mas não devemos massacrar o pobre Eutífron - não agimos nós muitas vezes do mesmo modo? Não tomamos decisões e agimos sem examinar, com o mínimo de cuidado, as razões para tanto? Não estamos, na maior parte do tempo, nos conduzindo de forma quase que inconsciente, tal como sonâmbulos? Não sejamos como Eutífron - pensemos e meditemos antes de agirmos.

  • Köksal Kök
    2019-04-23 12:39

    Sokrates (MÖ. 469-MÖ. 399)Platon-Eflatun (M.Ö. 427-M.Ö. 347)kitapta Platon, hocası Sokratesin Euthyphronla yaptığı sohbeti yazar.din üzerine olan bu sohbetin özü "din saçmalıktır, panteon keyfidir, ve bunlara gerek yoktur, düşünerek insan bunlara ihtiyacı olmadığını bulabilir-anlayabilir, yerim ulen zeusu" dur. haklıdır da adam. "bu saçmalıklar yüzünden niye mahkeme kapılarındayım arkadaş" diyor bi nevi.

  • Antonio Kowatsch
    2019-04-04 15:41

    This conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates perfectly highlights some of Socrates' delusions of grandeur. After all he compared his circumstances to those of Zeus and Cronos. And later he claims that he's a descendant of Daedalus and that he even supersedes him, because unlike Daedalus's inventions he makes other people's points "move around".The main topic of their discussion was the true nature of piety.Socrates argued that Euthyphro doesn't really have a clear definition of piety and therefore pushes him to elaborate. Euthyphro complies but later accuses Socrates of deliberately abusing red herrings. Which just for the record is absolutely accurate. Socrates then counters by calling Euthyphro lazy... (classic Socrates; trolling people was one of his hobbies)Many people seem to take a liking to this particular dialogue because Socrates is debating the very essence of morality. But at the end of the day all of his points are based on weak arguments that rely on the existence of deities. The true nature of morality however doesn't rely on the existence of supernatural beings but rather the law of reciprocity. It is therefore truly universal as it pertains to the human condition. The conversation ended when Euthyphro finally had enough of Socrates' shenanigans and excused himself, for he has had other things to attend to.

  • Erik Graff
    2019-03-29 07:41

    Maurice Lieberman taught "Humanites 101: The Ancient World" at Grinnell College which I took, there being no choice in the matter, during the first semester. The first book read was Plato's Euthyphro, an ironic early dialog about piety. It was my first direct exposure to the philosopher.The presentation was peculiar. Mr. Lieberman had hay fever. It was late summer. His nose ran continuously during the class, yet he proceeded to read aloud the entire text, pausing regularly to wipe his nose and mustachioed upper lip with a saturated, florid handkerchief. This was distracting.The point, I later inferred, was that Euthyphro had met Sokrates on the steps of a courthouse, en route to pressing dubious charges against his father. For the Greeks, piety had as much, if not more, to do with respect for elders, including the dead, as it did with any gods--the stories about whom, notably, Sokrates questions. Lieberman, who must have been in his fifties or older at the time, had problems dealing with the youth of the sixties. I think he was admonishing us. Unfortunately, this realization came later. I think he was more likely mostly talking to himself.

  • Paul Christensen
    2019-04-04 09:55

    This is a frustrating dialogue, because Euthyphro throws in the towel Before Socrates has properly interrogated him (technically, a foul).Socrates does not understand the Homeric account of the gods.That disagreements should arise among them is not particularly odd;The essential mission of Aryan gods is eternal war against Entropy,Decreasing the amount of which in the cosmos is true definition of piety.In this the gods are as one, and what is loved by them all is pious;They follow an imperative beyond themselves, in spite of Socrates' bias.The gods follow the ultimate good (that they love it is one of its attributes,But not however its essence), else sans meaning would be their attitudes.There is no 'Euthyphro dilemma', for you see both gods and menFollow something higher (call it 'good'), whose essence is beyond them.We help the gods to help the good, not the other way around;This dialogue will clarify that - frustrating, yet profound.

  • Simo Ibourki
    2019-04-17 08:04

    The Euthyphro dilemmaIs what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?That's the question that Socrates tries to answer in this dialogue.But as nearly all his dialogues he doesn't answer the question, he merely asks more questions and get everybody confused.But it's still a central question in theological and ethical philosophy and I love socrates for asking this type of questions.

  • Marts(Thinker)
    2019-03-26 14:47

    In conversation with Euthyphro, Socrates informs that a young man, Meletus, has accused him of corrupting the youth saying he is 'a poet or a maker of gods and that he invents new gods and denys the existence of old ones'. Socrates and Euthyphro expound on the issue of piety, with Euthyphro, a religious expert, presenting his definitions...

  • Jeenar ژینەر
    2019-04-18 10:03

    we can't define feelings and the power of believing , it's what Socrates wanted and pushed Eutifron to tell him in order to defend himself in front of the judges he will face, I do believe this kind of brains like Eutifron has always been available since the dawn of life unable to define and describe what are really is theses feelings and how can one feel or understand them perfectly.

  • Hussain Ali
    2019-04-14 15:43

    محاورة استثنائية جدا. مفيد جدا لمن يبحث عن أوائل من تكلموا عن الحسن والقبح العقليين.

  • Rowland Pasaribu
    2019-04-07 15:05

    The Euthyphro is a paradigmatic early dialogue of Plato's: it is brief, deals with a question in ethics, consists of a conversation between Socrates and one other person who claims to be an expert in a certain field of ethics, and ends inconclusively. It is also riddled with Socratic irony: Socrates poses as the ignorant student hoping to learn from a supposed expert, when in fact he shows Euthyphro to be the ignorant one who knows nothing about the subject (holiness).Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the dialogue is the inconclusiveness with which it ends. This inconclusiveness is hardly unique to the Euthyphro, but it is worth investigating. Is Plato suggesting that there is no such thing as a definition of holiness, that there is no one feature that all holy deeds have in common? And if he does think that there is a common link, why does he not reveal it to us in the dialogue?We may link the inconclusiveness of the dialogue to the dialogue form itself and the irony Socrates employs. Plato's main goal is to teach us, and he believes firmly (as we gather in other dialogues, notably the Meno) that knowledge only comes when we are able to justify and account for our true beliefs. Thus, teaching is not simply a matter of giving the right answers. It is a matter of leading the student toward the right answers and ensuring that the student can explain and justify the answers rather than simply repeat them. The dialogue form is ideal for this kind of teaching; it shows Socrates leading Euthyphro through Euthyphro's own reasoning, and thereby letting Euthyphro sort things out for himself.The irony is present because Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. This setup is necessary in order to encourage Euthyphro to present and analyze his own arguments, and thus to lead him to see their faults for himself. The dialogue ends inconclusively perhaps in order to urge the reader to think independently and struggle to formulate an adequate definition without Plato's help.There is some suggestion that Euthyphro is not thinking along the right lines at all. The definition that Euthyphro holds equates what is holy with what is approved of by the gods. Socrates' skillful argument shows that this definition is insufficient: though what is holy may be approved of by the gods, the two cannot be the same thing. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, then their approval cannot be what makes it holy. Alternatively, if it is holy because the gods approve of it, then we still don't know for what reason the gods approve of it. It seems that any attempt to ground our definition of holiness in the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. We might normally associate holiness with some sort of divine will, but Plato seems to be suggesting that we should think along another line altogether.Perhaps this other line is the Theory of Forms (discussed in the Phaedo), which would posit the Form of Holiness as the defining characteristic of all holy things. There are hints toward this position in the dialogue, though it is highly unlikely that Plato had developed any kind of technical theory by the time the Euthyphro was written. Perhaps the absence of this formulated theory is what leads the dialogue to end inconclusively.This prelude is loaded with the Socratic irony that is characteristic of an early Platonic dialogue. These early dialogues normally take place between Socrates and one other person, who claims to be an expert with regard to some field of knowledge or other, usually related to virtue. Socrates then confesses his own ignorance, asking his interlocutor to teach him. Slowly, through questioning, Socrates brings out the truth--that his interlocutor is in fact totally ignorant regarding this field. The irony lies in Socrates' manner of wholeheartedly accepting his interlocutor's word that he is indeed an expert. Here, for instance, we see Socrates suggesting that Euthyphro must be an expert with regard to what is holy and what is unholy, or else he would never dare prosecute his father. Euthyphro assures Socrates that he is indeed an expert, though we shall soon see that Euthyphro does not know how to define what is holy at all. Socrates' expressed confidence in Euthyphro's knowledge stands in ironic contrast to what we (and presumably Socrates) really think: that Euthyphro's decision to prosecute his own father is a sign of dogmatic narrow- mindedness, not evidence of his expert knowledge.We also find Socratic irony, as well as a distinct touch of bitterness, in the brief mention of Meletus. Meletus (who is more prominent in The Apology) was the person primarily responsible for bringing Socrates to trial, and thus responsible for his subsequent death. One of his principal charges is that Socrates corrupts the youth of Athens, and Socrates here suggests that it is a noble pursuit to prosecute those who corrupt the youth. After all, he remarks, the improvement of the youth is of great importance. This is a standard Socratic belief: most of Socrates' followers--Plato included--were young men who were eager to learn. In displaying the ignorance of others, Socrates hoped to teach these youths how to reason more carefully and more modestly. Since, according to Socrates, knowledge is the greatest good, his teachings were of great benefit to his students. Socrates then gives his conviction that one should strive to improve the youth--an ironic twist, suggesting that Meletus should be lauded for pursuing the same goal. We are supposed to infer, of course, that if Meletus were indeed acting for the benefit of the youth, his cause should be lauded, but in fact he is doing quite the contrary: he is trying to put an end to Socrates' influence.The Euthyphro was written not long after Socrates' execution, and so we should not be surprised that Meletus is presented in a bad light. Plato has good reason to be bitter toward this man, and refers dismissively to him as a "young unknown," befo re giving a very unflattering description of his physical features. In connection to Meletus' role in Socrates' execution, we should also note Euthyphro's prediction that all should end well for Socrates in this trial. There is a further touch of irony here, as Euthyphro--who claims to be an expert on matters divine and can predict the future--clearly does not foresee the actual, tragic outcome of Socrates' trial, an early sign that he may not be the expert on divine matters that he thinks he is.The "divine sign" that Euthyphro alludes to is mentioned also in The Apology at 31c-d and 40a. Socrates explains it is a little voice in his head that often warns him not to do things that could be of great danger to him. That, for instance, is why he has always stayed away from politics, having been warned by his divine sign that he would meet with trouble.

  • Ericka Clouther
    2019-04-17 11:02

    This is sort of interesting in terms of questioning the relationship between ethics and religion, but since it refers mostly to the pagan gods with various different opinions, some of the arguments are not that interesting.

  • Dylan Blanchard
    2019-04-14 12:59

    I think this was my first reading of a "classic", if you will. SO MUCH TO READ LEARN THINK ABOUT. k ✌️