In class yesterday, you and Robert read out loud to the class about the dialectic between Euthyphro and Socrates. The discussion was piety against Euthyphro's father who murdered someone. ( I think that is right, I am not sure. Can you clarify that part to me?) Piety means obedience to and honor of someone or something, especially ones' parents and (other?) divine beings. In the beginning of the discussion, Euthyphro states that his definition of piety is to proecute the wrong. In this case it is his father. This is the thesis. Then Socrates said there are many pious actions, which is the antithesis. He is looking for one form of piety. Later in the discussion, they both discussed about the gods. ( I think.) This led to the synthesis: what is dear to the gods is pious, and what is not is impious. What does this means? I am confused. They went on the discussion of the gods. This is where the part I got confused about. What is dear...not is impious. That is the synthesis. Then it went to the antithesis: the gods argued with each other about ideas; like piety. Then it went to the antithesis again. What is hated is also love? (Antithesis)Then it went back to synthesis. What is love by all of the gods is pious? Do you mean that after the thesis, there is antithesis and synthesis going back and forth in the dialectic. That is what I am getting at. Can you clarify this part for me?
Later in the discussion, Socrates said Is what is pious? Pious because the gods love it or do the gods love the pious because is pious. I am so confused of what is he saying. He is saying the sentences as if it was reversed or word-playing the words. I am lost to what he said. Can you explain to me in simplier terms, so that I can understand it better. Both Euthyphro and Socrates continued with this discussion. There was no conclusion to the discussion. There is a new dialectic: is piety part of justice? This is a definition of genus and species or genus and difference. The thesis here is of what part of justice is piety. Antithesis: Piety is the care of the gods. Piety can't make gods better. Lastly the synthesis, is the service of the gods. Pious actions are those pleasing to the gods. This is a circu lar definition, which means it is a bad definition that is reversed. For example, what is red? Red is the color of vermillion. What is vermillion? It is the color of red.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Much of your confusion here might be resolved by reading the dialogue. We have copies of it in the library in "Five Dialogues" by Plato translated by GMA Grube.
The details of the "murder" of the slave by Euthyphro's father are not particularly important except that they are obscure, and by some people's definition of murder, Euthyphro's father was not a murderer. Very likely in an American court he would have been found guilty of manslaughter or perhaps murder in the second degree, rather than first-degree murder.
Your confusion about the dialectic is probably compounded by my interrupting the flow of the dialogue to present it. Basically, one unit of the dialectic is this:
thesis,
antithesis,
synthesis.
In the thesis, a fundamental idea is presented which is contrasted or shown to be in some way faulty in the antithesis, so the antithesis is a kind of counter-argument to the argument of the thesis.
In the synthesis, the ideas in the thesis and the antithesis are somehow resolved: either they are merged in some way or one or another of them is adopted as the better, or a third approach is offered.
The synthesis can then be used as a new thesis, and the process begins again with a new antithesis and a new synthesis. This creates a kind of chain of ideas.
Whether what is pious is loved by the gods because it is pious or whether it is pious because it is loved by the gods is really a matter of looking carefully at what the words mean. There is really no simpler way to put the matter.
If what is pious is loved by the gods because it is pious, piety ("piousness") exists in its nature by itself. It is not dependent upon the gods to give it its quality, but instead the gods themselves recognize its value as existing in itself: the gods love it because it is what it is.
If, however, the pious is pious because the gods love it, the gods define what makes piety pious. Piety is dependent upon the gods for its nature. If the gods one day say piety is this, and the next day say it is that, then the one day it is this and the next it is that. Piety does not exists as it is in itself, based on its own qualities: it exists at the whim of the gods.
Post a Comment