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?
Socrates accurately contests that this definition does not provide the true nature of piety or why pious acts are in fact considered pious. By challenging Euthyphro’s perception of piety, Socrates attempts to obtain an objectivist definition of what it truly means to be pious. Socrates’ queries provide powerful support for the notion that one’s judgements regarding value is a response to objectively existing values. That is, the pious leads the gods to love it or the morally just leads one to approve it. However, perhaps the reason the dialogue draws to an aporetic conclusion, is the fact that piety may not be defined objectively. Pious acts may be considered immeasurable as they are based upon subjective individual values. Thus, the meaning of piety can differ as a result of one’s individual views and values. As one’s definition of piety may contradict another’s, acts may be regarded as both pious and impious simultaneously. Additionally, one’s own definition of what is considered pious may shift overtime, due to experience or greater understanding of a situation resulting in further discord between piety and impiety. However, whilst this Socratic dialogue does not result in a concise definition of what it means to be pious, it does indirectly enhance one’s understanding of piety by encouraging one to evaluate what the pious is
For centuries in literature, philosophers studied the idea of virtue to demonstrate the uphold of moral excellence and righteousness within characters. Eventually becoming a staple in Western literature, virtue can be described as the balance and imbalance of qualities specified by the philosopher Plato. He thought much of virtue, and eventually defined it according to the four criteria: courage, prudence, temperance, and justice. Plato portrayed courage as the showing of bravery in the midst of danger, prudence is one’s ability to show good judgment and to put other’s needs before their own; temperance is a person’s knowledge of when to show restraint and justice is when one gives to others what is owed to them. These characteristics not
In the Republic, Plato sets up a framework to help us establish what the four virtues are, and their relationship between them to both the city and the soul. According to Plato, the four virtues are wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. There are three classes within the city: guardians, auxiliaries, and artisans; and three parts within the soul include intellect, high-spirited, and appetitive. By understanding the different classes of the city or parts of the soul, one will be able to appreciate how the virtues attribute to each one specifically.
Philosophers are known to question, analyze and evaluate everything but do not always end with concrete conclusions. Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology, to no surprise, highlight one of such debate: the human characteristics of wisdom. Though Plato was one of the earliest philosophers, the topic of wisdom is still debated by modern philosophers today, contemplating questions such as “What are the classifications of ‘wisdom’?” According to Plato’s two dialogues, the characteristics of wisdom have a strong correlation with the characteristics of “being a good person”. This concept highlights the values of virtue and selflessness and at the same time juxtapose views on virtue while taking into account the different forms of rationality. In this paper, I will highlight how Plato uses his two dialogues to enforce his own opinion about the relationship between being wise and being a good person, and evaluate the inconsistencies within this claim.
Plato was a philosopher who was born in Athens (470-390 BCE), and was also a student of Socrates. He felt that intelligence and one’s perception belonged to completely independent realms or realities. He believed that general concepts of knowledge were predestined, or placed in the soul before birth even occurred in living things. Plato believed that the cosmos was intelligible, and the the universe was mathematically understandable. He believes that mathematical objects could be seen as perfect forms. Forms, a doctoral of Plato, can be understood as an everyday object or idea, which does not, exists in the everyday realm, but merely is existent in the hypothetical realm or reality.
I contend that Plato 's theories on morality are persuaded by concerns he had about moral theory. Specifically, Plato rejects rationality as the boost of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he received such an account, his hypothesis of justice would be liable to reactions which he holds are lethal to the contractarian theory of justice. While detailing a hypothesis to stay inside ethical constraints in some cases disregards the groups of scientific theorizing, Plato maintains to avoid this mistake.
In the Socratic dialogues of Plato, Socrates often argues against the pretence of knowledge in his interlocutors. In the case of the Laches, Meno, and Protagoras dialogues, the pretence is the knowledge of virtue, among other things. The Laches seeks a definition of arête (virtue), the Meno examines the teaching of virtue, and the Protagoras offers a known expert the chance to defend that virtue can, indeed, be taught. Using these dialogues as a backdrop, I will provide an analysis of the arguments and comment on the acquisition of virtue in Platonic dialogue.
Therefore, if these things are not exchanged with the help of wisdom then Socrates believes that the aspect of virtue is “…a mere illusion.” (Phaedo 69b). In conclusion, Socrates view on morality is based upon justice, examining how to live, and expanding one’s wisdom.
Socrates says "you did not teach me adequately when I asked you what the pious was, but you told me that what you are doing now, prosecuting your father for murder is pious (Plato, 10) Socrates wants to know what piety is "through one form" (Plato, 10). He does not want to know which things or actions are pious, but rather what piety itself is. One cannot simply define something by giving examples so this definition does not satisfy Socrates.
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.
Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn
Meno was one of Plato’s earliest of dialogues, written in depth the book is founded around a central question: If virtue can be taught, then how? And if not, then how does virtue come to man, either by nature or some other way? Socrates addresses this inquiry by questioning a person who claims to understand the term’s meaning (Plato's Meno). The purpose of this essay is to relate the Socratic method performed by Socrates in Plato’s dialogue The Apology, to Meno, by illustrating its effect on the character Meno himself.
Plato's Republic is often read as a political work, as a statement of some sort on government, society, and law. This is certainly not a rash reading of the dialogue; it is called the Republic, and over half of it is devoted to the construction of a city through speech, a city complete with a government structure, a military, an economic system, and laws. However, I believe that to read the Republic as a political statement is inaccurate. Although Socrates and his companions construct a city out of speech as they attempt to define justice, the dialogue repeatedly frames justice as something that cannot be established through a fixed system of morality, let alone through a rigid