The concept of holiness emerges in the dialogue when Socrates attempts to understand the essence of holiness and piety. Socrates asks Euthyphro what he has to say of pity and tries to give in the definition on what he thinks the gods feel about (Jowett, 2008). This then triggers the discussion of piety and holiness between Socrates and Euthyphro. The discussion that they have suggests that Euthyphro is not reasoning along the right lines. Euthyphro holds that whatever is approved by the gods is holy. Through his skillful argument Socrates clarifies that the definition is insufficient. Even though the gods may approve what is holy, these two cannot be the same thing. The approval alone by the gods cannot make something holy. Alternatively if something is holy due to the approval of the gods, then we cannot know for what reason it has been approved. This is an indication that any attempt to ground the definition of holiness on the approval of the gods will be bound to fail making it take a prominent position in the dialogue.
The first definition that Euthyphro offers of piety is when he tries to explain what he is currently doing by having his father prosecuted for manslaughter (Allen, 2005). This is rejected by Socrates since it is not a definition but an example of piety. This does not provide the essential characteristic of what make pious things pious.
The definition is what is pleasant to the gods. This definition is applauded by Socrates since it is illustrated in broad form, but criticizes it as he feels that the gods may disagree amongst themselves on what is pleasant. This is an indication that if a particular action is disputed by the gods it would become pious and impious at the same time, which is an impossible situation logically. Euthyphro further tries to argue this as he feels that gods cannot disagree amongst themselves and anyone who kills without justification should be punished. However Socrates argues out that disputes would still arise on the amount of justification needed, making the same action both impious and pious.
Another definition given by Euthyphro is that piety is the art of prayer and sacrifice. This puts forward the notion of piety as another form of knowledge on how exchange can be done by giving gifts to god, then in return asking for favors. Socrates then asks how it gifts from humans are beneficial to the gods. Socrates warns that this makes it a species of commerce from the knowledge of exchange (Jowett, 2008). Even though Euthypro argues that these gifts are in the form of esteem, honor and favor, Socrates feels this acts, as commerce and the gods cannot be appeased by human gifts.
Plato’s main goal is to teach and educate the readers of the dialogue script that he formulates. This is because he firmly believes that knowledge can only be attained when an individual is able to account and justify their own true beliefs. This is an indication that teaching is not only a matter of illustrating or giving the right answers. Teaching and education is a matter of leading the student in the direction of the right answers and ensuring that the student is able to justify and explain the answers that they give rather than simply repeating the answers. It therefore illustrates that a dialogue is superlative for this kind of teaching: it illustrates how Socrates takes a lead on Euthyphro through his own reasoning, which eventually lets Euthyphro to sort things out himself.
This is all illustrated by the inconclusiveness of the dialogue and the irony that Socrates employs. The irony is that Socrates treats Euthyphro as the teacher while in fact it is Socrates who is taking the lead in teaching Euthyphro. This form of set up encourages Euthyphro to analyze and present his own argument, which eventually leads him to note their faults for himself (Allen, 2005). When the dialogue ends inclusively, it is an indication of the sole of the paper: to urge and encourage the reader to reason independently and put in a great effort to come up with an adequate definition without the help of Plato.
Piety and holiness is the deeds that human carry out and feel contended with and are not haunted by conscience as that is what right with them and the goods. When something is carried out and one remains with a clear conscience it is an indication that the gods are pleased. However the bad deeds haunt an individual’s showing the displeasure of the gods.
Socrates would argue out humans cannot define what is holy and piety due to their limited understanding. While a child may commit acts which treacherous and murders without feeling bad, does this indicate that such actions are holy? The gods are not pleased or displeased in any way by human actions, while it is not the sole aim of humans to please the gods. This shows that commerce of trading actions between the gods through human actions does not exist as we do not truly understand the way of life and thoughts of the gods.
References
R.E. Allen. (2005). Plato’s “Euthyphro” and the Earlier Theory of Forms. London:
Routldege
Jowett B. (2008). The Project of Gutenberg EBook of Euthyphro, by Plato. Retrieved
from http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1642/pg1642.txt
