Plato and Aristotle: a Comparison Essay

At the core of Socrates’ argument is the need to break down the definition of holiness into smaller coherent characteristics. Socrates uses a series of question that are consistent with Euthyphro’s argument to ensure that he [Euthyphro] offers a consistent flow of definitions of the word holy.

If it were the exact definition, only Euthyphro would be pious. He said that Euthyphro did not understand the difference between a definition and an example. Next, Euthyphro says that piety is found in things that are dear to the gods (7a). Socrates again rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety. The Greek gods were anthropomorphic; therefore, another may despise what would be dear to one god. This definition offered was not distinct. Finally, Euthyphro said that what is pious is what loved by the gods (9e). However, Euthyphro can’t answer whether something is pious because it is loved or it is loved because it is pious. He can’t conceive the difference between cause and effect. It is in the Euthyphro that Socrates begins his defense of his actions and principles to the reader. A priest can’t give him a concise answer as to what is religious; therefore, how can anyone else, especially one less religiously guided than a priest, accuse him of blasphemous actions?

In this interaction, Socrates considers Euthyphro to help in explaining all there is to be known about piety and the related impiety. Euthyphro confirms that he is indeed an expert in the matter relating to religious issues and can thus assist Socrates in the charges that face him. In their argument in the efforts to define the true meaning of piety, Socrates and Euthyphro engage in the analysis of issues that threaten to confuse human understanding about the whole issue of holiness and impiety in the society, (Plato & Gallop, 2008). To understand the true meaning of piety, it is of great importance to take a holistic analysis of the beliefs of the people about

In Plato's dialogue, 'Euthyphro', Socrates presents Euthyphro with a choice: `Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved [by the gods]?'

Socrates and Euthyphro cross paths one day at the courts of Athens. At the time, Euthyphro was there to prosecute his father for murder. Socrates takes the opportunity to ask Euthyphro what the meaning of piety is. In this paper, I exam the issue at hand, how Socrates uses his question to doubt Euthyphro’s thesis, and give an explanation as to what this question means for someone who maintains that God is the origin or foundation of morality.

Therefore, appealing to action does not clarify what constitutes piety. Moreover one god may perceive Euthyphro’s action as just, while another deplores is as unjust. Another proposition is that piety is what is universally loved by the gods, and impiety is what is universally hated by the gods. However, is the particular action pious because it is loved by the gods or loved by the gods because it is pious? Is piety intrinsically virtuous or virtuous because external praise by the gods? Socrates poses a remarkably timeless question. For example, is it unjust to kill Syrians because human life has intrinsic value, or is it unjust to kill by consensus? Is there an objective moral duty to preserve human life, or is the value of life merely dependent on social

Greek philosopher Plato’s account of the end of fellow philosopher Socrates’ life in The Trial and Death of Socrates includes a plethora of philosophical theories and ideas, but the one that stands out the most is none other than what is known as the Euthyphro Paradox. Found in the “Euthyphro” section of the book, Socrates brings up the idea of what is actually considered pious, or moral, by asking what exactly makes those things pious in the first place. More specifically, Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (Plato 11).

Excellence is a function which renders excellent the thing of which it is a function is Plato’s definition of virtue. What does this definition really mean though? Plato and Aristotle both had their own unique arguments devoted to the topic at hand, and their own ways of describing what virtue really is. Defining virtue may seem to be an easy taste, but to truly understand the arguments behind the definition can prove to be very challenging.

Euthyphro’s first response is, “ I say that what I am doing right now is pious” (Euthyphro 5d). Socrates quickly rejects Euthyphro’s initial definition, pointing out that what he was doing right now—prosecuting his father—was mealy and example of what was pious. After agreeing with Socrates, that his first definition was insufficient, he tries again stating, “what is dear to the gods is pious” (7a). Yet again, Socrates brushes off this definition citing that amongst the gods there can exist disputes and what is pious to one may not be pious to another. It is important to note that, in both instances, Euthyphro did not contest Socrates’ assertions, instead accepting them as valid criticisms. This suggests that Euthyphro knew at some level—even before he articulated his definition— that his assertion was incorrect.

Throughout the paper Socrates provides sound arguments to the definitions given by Euthyphro, who believes that he is an expert on the matter, yet ends up leaving without an answer. The dialogue ends without an explicit answer to the question that has been the basis of the entire conversation; this provokes the reader to determine whether there is an actual definition as to what is pious. The concept of pleasing the gods and universal rights/wrongs are explicit examples of supernaturalism and moral realism. What Socrates aims to teach his colleague is that there is no explicit answer to the question being asked. If there is an answer, it would be an amalgamation of the aforementioned theories. With a large majority of the world being religious, the subject matter of the dialogue is still relevant today. While reading this, I was able to agree with both Socrates and Euthyphro at different times in the dialogue. Euthyphro’s explanations of holiness are what the majority of the public would say today, however Socrates highlights that piety is something that cannot be explicitly defined. While some things are unanimously agreed upon as holy deeds, there are some conflicts as to what can be considered

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

Plato's "Euthyphro" introduces the Socratic student both to the Socratic Method of inquiry and to, or at least towards, a definition of piety. Because the character of Euthyphro exits the dialogue before Socrates can arrive at a reasonable definition, an adequate understanding of piety is never given. However, what piety is not is certainly demonstrated. Euthyphro gives three definitions of piety that fail to mean much to Socrates, who refutes each one. In this paper, I will present Euthyphro's definitions along with Socrates' rebuttals. I will also show that Socrates goal in the dialogue is two-fold: 1) to arrive at a true definition, and 2) to exercise his method of teaching/inquiry. At the conclusion of this paper, I will give my own definition of piety and imagine what Socrates might say in response.

pious is a part of the just that is the care of the gods, while that concerned

Plato and Aristotle are philosophers that both have an idea of an ideal state but they have their differences. While there are benefits to each of their views on politics and society, there are also many negative things about their views. Some of their negative views were realistic at one point in time but few are the same in today 's society. Although I don 't fully agree with either philosopher, I would have to side with Aristotle overall.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.