kemuEuthyphro is one of Plato's known early dialogues.
辅料英文Shortly before the Greek philosopher Socrates is due to appear in court, he encounters a young man, Euthyphro, who has gained the reputation of being a religious expert. Euthyphro has come to lay a ries of charges against his father, that of manslaughter, as his father had allowed one of his workers to die without proper care and attention. The worker had killed a slave belonging to the family estate on the island of Naxos, and Euthyphro's father had let him die bound and gagged in a ditch. Socrates express his astonishment at the confidence of a young man able to take his own father to court on such a rious charge. In what may be perceived as a tongue in cheek fashion, Socrates states that Euthyphro obviously has a clear understanding of what is holy and unholy. Since Socrates himlf is facing a charge of lacking holiness, by worshipping gods not approved by the state, and is unclear what holiness is, he hopes to learn from Euthyphro.
Plato, the author of the Euthyphro.Euthyphro claims that what lies behind the charge brought against Socrates by Meletus and the other accurs is Socrates's claim that he is s
ubjected to a daimon or divine sign which warns him of various cours of action. Euthyphro is right; such a claim would be regarded with suspicion by many Athenians. So too would Socrates's views on some of the stories about the Greek gods, which the two men briefly discuss before plunging into the argument. Socrates express rervations about tho accounts which show up the gods' cruelty. He mentions the castration of the early sky god, Uranus, by his son Cronos, saying he finds such stories very difficult to accept.show是什么意思
The argument
morning dewSocrates's inductive method of arguing can be en in the main part of the dialogue, in which Socrates invites Euthyphro to put forward definitions of holiness which the two can then discuss. From the definitions offered and discusd, an acceptable account of holiness (Piety) will be built up. It is clear that Socrates wants a definition of Piety which will be universally true, that is, it should apply to all people at all times, regardless of race, creed or culture. It will be a standard or template against which all actions can be measured in order to determine whether they are holy (pious) or not.
The stages of the argument can be summarid as follows
1. Euthyphro offers as his first definition of piety what he is doing now, that is, procuting his father for manslaughter. Socrates rejects this becau it is an example or instance of holiness, not a definition. It does not provide the fundamental characteristic which makes holy (pious) things holy (pious).
2. Euthyphro's cond definition: holiness (piety) is what the gods approve of. Socrates applauds this definition becau it is expresd in a general form but criticis it on the grounds that the gods disagree among themlves as to what meets their approval. This would mean that a particular action, disputed by the gods, would be both holy (pious) and unholy (impious) at the same times — a logically impossible situation. Euthyphro tries to argue against Socrates's criticism by pointing out that not even the gods would disagree amongst themlves that someone who kills without justification should be punished, but Socrates argues that disputes would still ari — over just how much justification there actually was, and hence the same action could still be both holy (Pious) and unholy (impious).
和霍金一起探索宇宙>hrb
3. Euthyphro overcomes Socrates's objection by inrting the word 'all' into his former definition. Thus the third definition reads: What all the gods approve of is holy (pious), and what they all disapprove of is unholy (impious). At this point Socrates asks the crucial question: Do the gods approve an action becau it is holy (pious), or is it holy (pious) becau it is approved? He us a typical Socratic technique, analogy or comparison, to make his question clearer and gets Euthyphro to agree that we call a carried thing carried simply becau it is carried, not becau it posss some inherent characteristic or property that we could call 'carried'. Carried, that is, is not an inherent quality like weight. What he is trying to get Euthyphro to e is that we carry something that is already there. This thing exists without our carrying it; our carrying does not bring it into existence. So too as far as holiness (piety) is concerned; we approve or disapprove of something which is already, in some n, there; our approving, by itlf, does not make an action holy (pious). The approval follows from our recognition that an action is holy (pious); not the other way round. Or, to put it more simply, the holiness (piety) comes before the approval; in Euthyphro's definition it comes after the approval; it is a conquence of the approval. Euthyphro's definition is therefore flawed.
bothand
Without realising that it contradicts his third definition, Euthyphro at this point agrees that the gods approve an action becau it is holy (pious). (Later he will return to his earlier definition.) Socrates argues that the unanimous approval of the gods is merely an attribute of holiness (piety); it is not part of its defining characteristics. It does not define the esnce of holiness (piety), what holiness (piety) is in itlf; it does not give the idea of holiness (piety).
多国语言翻译机In the cond half of the discussion aiming to bring about a clear and distinct definition of holiness (piety), Socrates does more than just invite and then examine Euthyphro's definitions. It is he who puts forward the next definition of holiness (piety), gaining Euthyphro's immediate acceptance:myfriend
4. Holiness/piety belongs to tho actions we call just or morally good. However, there are more than just holy/pious actions that we call just or morally good; for example, bravery, concern for others and so on. What is it, asks Socrates, that makes holiness/piety different from all tho other actions that we call just?
