Euthyphro – Plato
Euthyphro looks at the issue of holiness and how it can be noticed. Crito deals with responsibility as specified by the law whereas Phaebo the human soul. In apology, we see Socrates trying to proof his innocence in Athenian court bringing in new religious beliefs misdirecting the young generation. This is Plato’s most profound defense critical to the philosophy of the society. None of the characters agrees with author’s views each of them arguing with their own line of thinking. They examined and critically questioned every statement and as it winds up it gives an impression that more points of views had been opened. Socrates, Plato’s spokesperson looks more advantaged and his arguments seems to be very hypothetical. He is a man committed to pursuit of truth with strong stance. An effort of the two main characters tries to help clear out problems rather than bringing in theories and philosophical treaties. People in the society had been living under deception, myths, and beliefs without questioning. Plato and Socrates developed the essence of critique. Their dialogue invites us into discussion of holiness without maintaining any boundary whatsoever.
The first definition of piety was Euthyphro persecuting his father for manslaughter. Socrates disputed this because it is in fact not a definition and it is an example of piety. He could not provide a reasonable argument and attributes, which makes religious things religious. Secondly, he said piety is what is pleasing to gods. Applauding this opinion, Socrates says it is expressed in general form and criticizes it that even gods would disagree on what is pleasing. Different gods would have their own definitions on what is religious and what is not religious. This therefore could not hold as a definition. His final definition, which he says piety is an art of sacrifice and prayer. His explanation seems to suggest that this is a kind of exchange where one gives a gift to the god and ask for favors in turn. Socrates gives a counter attacked the argument that gifts are not just gifts but rather esteems, favor and honor. It is limited to what the gods like. The discussion became a circle without end or even a precise answer to the issue of piety.
It is in point blank, that the main aim of Socrates in this whole issue of piety and going into dialog was to find a universal and generally accepted definition. It is logical to note that it is not practical to find such because pious issues are complex and people do differ in views and believes. What one religious group consider holy and moral may not be so to the other group. His goal therefore was to make us try to examine issues before believing in them so that we will not fall prey to deception. The reason why it is this way is that at the end of the day even Socrates could not give an appropriate definition and so he was just there to dispute his counterparts and not offering any solution. His way of attacking nullifying all definitions is what makes one arrive at this conclusion.
In one’s opinion, piety/holiness is separation from sin and pleasing God. It involves doing the will of God and keeping his commands. The counter argument to this line of thought is also enormous. Given that there are various religious groups; Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists who all claim to believe in the same God, how comes they have different scripts of faith which define sin in very different ways from each other? It is then not easy to determine and understand what is meant by sin and pleasing God because every group has its own beliefs. Each of these groups claim to be right and consider all the others sinner. So whom should we believe? Another thing is that God is a supernatural and invisible being and so it is not easy to know what is will is and what he likes. For instance, what a Muslims considers to be the will of God may be interpreted by Christians as a sin. We should still ask ourselves what happens to those people who do not have the knowledge of God and his commands. Would they, be condemned and yet they were not aware they were on the wrong? In summary, we human beings have been endowed with mind and ability to critically think. It is always good to critically examine ideas, issues and anything in life before adopting them otherwise, we can be victims of dogmatic ideologists. Socrates tries to drive the point that solution to our queries and even problems lies within us. You must have a reasonable ground to take your stand in any given issue. Never again should a reasonable human being be deceived by the ideas of compact majority. People like politicians may try to influence us to engage in some negative behavior or even participate in things like strikes without asking why we do so.
References
Allen, R. E. (2004). Plato's "Euthyphro" and the Earlier Theory of Forms. London: Oxford UP.
Audi, R. (Ed). (2005). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
, J. (2003). Cross-Examining Socrates: A Defense of the Interlocutors in Plato’s Early Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, M.J. (Ed.). (2004). Plato. Complete Works. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
Tredennick, T., Hugh and Plato, H (2003). The Last Days of Socrates. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
.
