Socratic Aporia: the Knowledge Behind Truth

The Euthyphro is an example of early dialogue of Plato's: it is brief, deals with a question in ethics, this is a dialogue which took place between Socrates and Euthyphro who claims to be an expert in a certain field of ethics, which ended prematurely. It is also puzzled with Socratic irony, the irony is present because Socrates is reckoning Euthyphro as the teacher when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. Socrates poses as the ignorant student wishing to learn from a supposed expert, when in fact he shows Euthyphro to be the ignorant one who knows nothing about the subject on which they are discussing, which is piety and impiety. This setup is necessary in order to encourage Euthyphro to bring forth and evaluate the arguments being formed by him, and thus to lead him to see their faults for himself.

The main question of this dialogue is the definition of the word holy or piety. Euthyphro brags that he is more knowledgeable than his father on matters relating to religion. In this case, Socrates suggests to Euthyphro to define that term. The first definition fails to satisfy Socrates because of its limitation in application. Apparently, Socrates perceives this definition as an example rather than a definition. Subsequent arguments and line of questioning lead to five sets of definitions that are refined to find the general definition. Socrates expects that the acceptable general definition of the question will act as a reference point in his defense.

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

However in Plato’s Euthyphro, it can be argued that Socrates plays a similar role. In the Euthyphro, Socrates discusses piety in general and what makes things and people pious. Socrates claims he wants to learn more on the subject so that he may better defend himself against the treasonous charges against him. In a way, Euthyphro represents the traditional Athenian way of thinking. He believes in and supports all of the gods and does not submit to Socrates’ prodding of the subject, although he does walk away from him in frustration at the end of the dialogue. However it can safely be said that most Athenians would agree with Euthyphro’s opinion of the gods and to disagree could most certainly be punishable by law, as Socrates was. Socrates’ search for the definition of piety is a difficult one that tests Euthyphro’s patience and ultimately leaves the characters and the reader without an answer. Every time Euthyphro proposes an answer, Socrates is quick to counter it with some thought. Interpreting Socrates’ tone and meaning here is important. Some may see Socrates to be quite demeaning in these instances, almost teasing Euthyphro because he claims to be so pious yet he cannot even define the word. In this way, similar to Aristophanes’ Clouds, Socrates plays a subversive role in the Euthyphro.

* But since different Gods think different things are good how do we decide what is holy

At first, the irony of Socrates’ question is confusing, and it is never fully answered within the text, but it does force one to think deeper than typically done. That was surely Socrates’ goal in asking the question – to make Euthyphro rethink his ideology before making a life-altering decision. Prior to their conversation, Euthyphro was planning on prosecuting his own father on a questionable charge of tying up a slave and leaving him to die. Socrates initially compliments Euthyphro, stating that most people would not have it in them to be to prosecute their own father, no matter the reason, so Euthyphro’s ability to do so must mean he is much wiser than the average person (4). Euthyphro agrees, which is what leads to Socrates’ question – the Euthyphro Paradox.

Meno 's paradox is a very prevalent paradox in the area of philosophy. It arises during a conversation between Socrates and Meno in the book Five Dialogues. Meno and Socrates are speaking about what virtue is when Meno raises an interesting point, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know?” (p. 70). In simple terms, Meno is asking Socrates how he will

Socrates’s image in the two works differ firstly in his attitude towards knowledge and towards himself. A typical statement of Socrates, both in the Euthyphro and in other Plato’s works, is that he has no clear knowledge. He is different from the public because he knows that he does not know. Neither does he claim to teach or corrupt the young (Euthyphro, p.2

If we apply this to the question of virtue, which is being considered in the Meno, neither Socrates nor Meno can define virtue, and so they do not know what virtue is, therefore they can not inquire about virtue.

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

pious, but every answer he offers is subjected to the full force of Socrates' critical thinking. Socrates systematically refutes Euthyphro's

In Euthyphro, he shows that he is a teacher by teaching Euthyphro what is holy. Euthyphro thought he knew what holy is, but Socrates proves that he is wrong and teaches him what really is holy. Socrates teaches Crito what just really is in Crito. This is another case of somebody thinking they know what something is and Socrates ends up teaching them that they didn’t actually know what they were talking about. Meno is a bit different than the first two. In Meno, Meno asks Socrates a question about virtue whereas in the other two Socrates was teaching something that Euthyphro and Crito thought they knew. Meno is taught that you can’t know if virtue can be taught until you have some understanding of what virtue itself is. Meno had no understanding of what virtue was or if it could be taught, but Socrates gave him a basic understanding of what virtue is and that it can’t be taught. Socrates told people things things they didn’t know, and he showed them things they never saw. Socrates was definitely a

The use of Socrates’ inquiry in the Meno is a perfect example to show how Socrates pushed his listeners to question their own knowledge. Socrates never told Meno his definitions were wrong and his own were right, rather continued to question Meno’s conclusions to show him that he did not know the true meaning of virtue. The people of Athens were unable to accept the fact that many of them were ignorant on topics such as the definition of virtue, whereas Socrates himself was able to admit it. The Athenians disguised Socrates’ true desire to teach people for corruption and impiety because they believed he was trying to humiliate them. Although the people of Athens were blind of Socrates’ true intentions, his method of inquiry did in fact benefit the city of Athens. Socrates’ methods eliminated ignorance and increased proper knowledge on important things such as virtue and knowledge within the city of Athens, which is what he meant when he said he was “a gift of the gods to the city of Athens.”

Socrates does well in applying his Socratic method to his conversation with Meno as well. It seems evident from the text that Meno is rather ignorant. For, a great sum of his responses to Socrates consisted mostly of impertinent questioning and meek agreements. However, Socrates did not seem to mind, as he continued to fathom the nature virtue. He explores the relationship between virtue and knowledge, more specifically whether virtue is a kind of knowledge and may therefore be taught (though he concluded to be uncertain of this case). Socrates also goes on to invalidate Meno’s paradoxical question, “... how will you enquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know?” Socrates concludes with the argument that “...there is no teaching, but only recollection.” He goes on to prove his argument to Meno by questioning one of his slaves. This supports Socrates’ claim