Most people would consider it impious for a son to bring charges against his father, but Euthyphro claims to know better. He was probably a kind of priest in a somewhat unorthodox religious sect. His purpose in prosecuting his father is not to get him punished but to cleanse the household of bloodguilt.
This is the kind of thing he understands and the ordinary Athenian does not. The English term "piety" or "the pious" is translated from the Greek word "hosion. Piety has two senses:. Euthyphro begins with the narrower sense of piety in mind. But Socrates, true to his general outlook, tends to stress the broader sense.
He is less interested in correct ritual than in living morally. Jesus' attitude toward Judaism is rather similar. Socrates says, tongue-in-cheek as usual, that he's delighted to find someone who's an expert on piet—just what he needs in his present situation.
So he asks Euthyphro to explain to him what piety is. Euthyphro tries to do this five times, and each time Socrates argues that the definition is inadequate.
Impiety is failing to do this. Socrates' Objection : That's just an example of piety, not a general definition of the concept. Socrates' Objection : According to Euthyphro, the gods sometimes disagree among themselves about questions of justice.
So some things are loved by some gods and hated by others. On this definition, these things will be both pious and impious, which makes no sense. Impiety is what all the gods hate. Socrates' Objection: The argument Socrates uses to criticize this definition is the heart of the dialogue. His criticism is subtle but powerful. He poses this question: Do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it? To grasp the point of the question, consider this analogous question: Is a film funny because people laugh at it or do people laugh at it because it's funny?
If we say it's funny because people laugh at it, we're saying something rather strange. We're saying that the film only has the property of being funny because certain people have a certain attitude toward it. But Socrates argues that this gets things the wrong way round. People laugh at a film because it has a certain intrinsic property, the property of being funny.
This is what makes them laugh. Similarly, things aren't pious because the gods view them in a certain way. Rather, the gods love pious actions such as helping a stranger in need, because such actions have a certain intrinsic property, the property of being pious. Socrates' Objection : The notion of care involved here is unclear. How can one possibly quanitfy and encapsulate that into three, four, or five stars?
Well this blew my mind. The first dialogue, Euthyphro, takes place at the Athenian court, when Socrates has to wait for his trial to begin.
There, while waiting, he meets a man, Euthyphro, who comes to accuse his father for murdering one of his slaves. After he came back, the slave had died from hunger and thirst, so Euthyphro decides to take his own father to court and let the judges decide if they convict the man for murder or not. Socrates naturally begs the question: why do you think it is good to take your own father to court?
After which Euthyphro ends up in a Socratic dialogue which centres around the question of what is pious? Pious, because Euthyphro tells Socrates that it is good to accuse his own father because the gods approve of this. In summary: Socrates asks him whether 1 something is pious because the gods approve it, or 2 the gods approve it because it is pious?
So Euthyphro counters that Piety is a subdivision of Justice. Euthyphro answers that human piety offers gratitude to the gods, but, according to Socrates, this brings one back to the original question: why do the gods then approve of this? Now, Euthyphro has enough, leaves Socrates and the dialogue ends. In the Apology, Socrates offers his defence speech, after his accusers have brought the charges against him.
Socrates is accused of being an atheist i. Socrates defends himself in a rather apathic way, not caring much about what will happen to him. The only thing he cares for is to stick to his principles. Many years ago, the Oracle at Delphi told a friend of Socrates that Socrates is the wisest of men.
To find out why, he went to the people who are supposed to be knowledgeable experts in their fields: politicians, poets and skilled craftsmen. Without knowledge, Athens will not be virtuous. We see here the upright dogmatists not bending his back in front of resentful, lowly opponents. He is even haughty enough to laugh away the offer to live, by either excusing himself, escaping from prison or paying a fee — in fact, he supposes his punishment to be that the State will take care of him in a fashionable manner, providing food and shelter, out of gratitude for his work.
When in his cell, awaiting his day of reckoning, Socrates is visited by friends. One of them, Crito, is the main personage in the third dialogue, Crito. Crito comes to visit Socrates to beg him to escape his prison cell and live somewhere else and see his three children grow up. Socrates replies that escaping prison would mean breaking the Athenian law and hence injuring the State and the Laws.
Injuring someone is injustice, and being virtuous forbids injustice. Socrates has two options: convince the State of its mistake which he failed to do or to undergo punishment. In this dialogue, Plato lets Socrates explain how the Laws are almost a personage on their own — Socrates claims the laws birthed him, reared him and when he turned 17 the age at which a child became an adult , he voluntarily entered into a contract with the State.
This signals the willing submission to the State and its Laws. Escaping prison now would mean breaking the law; being just requires Socrates to undergo his punishment i. Again, we see here the dogmatist who feels upright and superior to all the hypocrites around him — a typical academic attitude, which can be seen in many academics in our own time as well.
The feeling of superior knowledge and the position that entitles someone to exclaim truths — never mind all the fallacies involved here. Anyway, the final dialogue, the Phaedo, explains how Socrates lived in his final moments. Socrates tries to argue them out of their emotions by claiming that they should be happy for him. Because, being a philosopher, he will in a very short time become an immortal soul again, soaring to heavenly heights, since he has led a good life.
The gods chain souls in fragile, corruptible and corrupting bodies. They will reward a man for living a life of contemplation, resisting all the bodily desires such as food, drinks and sex.
Most of the people will succumb to the bodily seduction and lead a life of debauchery and ignorance. The gods will punish these souls by reincarnating them as stupid, lowly animals, such as donkeys and flies.
People who do better will be reincarnated as social animals, bees and ants, for example. The most purest of souls, those who devote their entire life to loving wisdom i.
This is the picture of the afterlife that Socrates paints. But why should his friends believe him? Because of his arguments. Socrates thinks that he can logically prove the existence of an immortal literally un-dying and imperishable soul. Composites can break down in their constituents, which can form new composites — hence, these substances are changing, perceptible and mortal.
Elements, though, cannot — by definition — be broken down in more elementary constituents — hence, these substances are unchanging, imperceptible and immortal.
These elements can only be abstracted from perceptible things and hence perceptible things can only resemble these abstract things in more or less degrees. Plato identifies these imperceptible things as Ideas, or Forms, and the sensible things as material objects, which partake in these Ideas. The soul is deemed to be such an immortal and imperceptible element, and hence cannot be destroyed literally is un-dying.
So, when we observe corpses decompose, we see composites break down in their elements. But the soul, as a life-giving element, cannot be destroyed so it has to go somewhere after the body dies. The soul become a pure reality, a pure Idea, again — just like it was before it was tied town to a fragile body by the gods. We know things that cannot come from sense-perception, so this knowledge but somehow already exist in our souls before we were born as organisms. This proves that the soul exists before we are born as organisms and that the soul knew much but forgot things possibly due to bodily distractions.
The Apology is basically one long argument to prove the existence of the soul as an immortal, imperceptible, infinite thing. Building on Pre-Socratic notions, Plato explains that the universe was ordered out of mixed substances by Intelligence, and that Intelligence partakes in certain objects in the universe, giving these objects life, motivation and reason.
The human soul is such an intelligent thing, partaking in Intelligence in more or lesser degrees. I can see how this mysticism might appeal to people, deriving true reality from the endless bombardment of sense-experience.
But it is a logical fallacy, none the less — you cannot treat existence as a predicate. Existence is not a quality that objects can possess or lack. You cannot claim that because I can abstract a perfect circle from observations from imperfect, worldly circles e.
Thinking something is not an argument for the existence of that something. In sum: Plato tries to derive the existence of empirical objects from analytic deductions — something which has clouded philosophy for way too long. Even now, there is much too much mysticism involved in certain branches of philosophy — deducing supposed knowledge from imperceptible realms.
Also, Plato had an excuse for his flaws — limited knowledge — and as a creative mind, he was paving the way for future philosophy to ride on — this cannot be said of more modern speculative philosophers like Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger.
This edition contains extras: a General Introduction, a introduction to each of the four selections listed above, and a postscript to Phaedro. The extras are intended to be informative without being arcane. The editor has focused much on philosophy and some on rhetoric. Since I understand rhetoric better than philosophy, I was glad to find some rhetorical comments in the extras. We are reading into various works of Plato, including The Republic.
You know, Socrates was kindof a dick. What have I just finished reading? A masterpiece? No, more than that - much more than that! An experience so exhilarating that I am left with no words. Perhaps, what I am feeling now surpasses description!
You must read it, to experience it! Sep 20, Lesley rated it it was amazing. Awarding stars to a book like this is not hard. It is a factual recount of Socrates final days, this is worth 5 stars alone. So, I am afraid that much like his jury, I arrived with bias and I was unlikely to award any less than the full set of stars.
I recommend that everyone reads the beginning of this book, the trail and the sentencing of Socrates. This book contains the four dialogues that track the trial, condemnation and death of Plato's Socrates on charges of heresy and corrupting the youth of Athens. All of them allow Plato to articulate his views on the best way to live a responsible life, as well as his thoughts on death and the soul. The Phaedo, especially, is one of the most moving pieces of writing in western literature and really deserves to be more widely read.
I don't have Greek so can't comment on the accuracy of the translatio This book contains the four dialogues that track the trial, condemnation and death of Plato's Socrates on charges of heresy and corrupting the youth of Athens. I don't have Greek so can't comment on the accuracy of the translation, but it reads extremely well, flowing and smooth, and captures the changing moods of the dialogues as we move towards death.
As far as ancient wisdom goes, this is it. The trial was great and I was reminded that I actually read it before, pre-goodreads documentation However, the post-trial dialogues reminded me of the irrational side of Socrates. You still gotta respect a guy who philosophizes until his peers kill him for corrupting the youth, but I just wish he didn't use his last words As far as ancient wisdom goes, this is it.
You still gotta respect a guy who philosophizes until his peers kill him for corrupting the youth, but I just wish he didn't use his last words to talk about his theory of forms in my eyes, it's pretty much defining something with its name In his defense though, I can see him as someone who would actually take modern knowledge and use it, as opposed to modern folk who can't get past the ancient primitive ideas, despite modern things like science, simply because they are written in an old book.
Excellent stuff. I liked it much more than I expected, and I liked Socrates as a character very much. If I could make any wish at this moment, I would wish to see and hear Socrates and Saint Paul having a beer together and discussing all things that pertain to life and the life to come.
Especially, because I would like to see what face Socrates would make when he'd find himself with no more questions to ask and facing Truth itself in the Gospel presented by Paul. Thoughts from Socrates' trial and execution 13 October While I have written commentaries on collections before I have since tried to steer away from doing that to instead write about the individual pieces contained therein.
Okay, in one way it does help to bump up the number of books on my shelf, but then again that is somewhat irrelevant It's not as if I win a prize if I have the most books on my shelf, or the most reviews. Generally I find it better to comment on the individual pieces be Thoughts from Socrates' trial and execution 13 October While I have written commentaries on collections before I have since tried to steer away from doing that to instead write about the individual pieces contained therein.
Generally I find it better to comment on the individual pieces because each of those pieces will have their own points and purposes such as say a collection of Sophoclean plays and to write on the books such as Three Theban Plays ends up detracting from the individual pieces therein.
Sometimes I will write a review on a collection such as with Henry VI and this particular book namely because the individual pieces share a common theme, or because it is helpful to look at the works as a whole. The common theme with these particular works of Plato is that they all deal with the trial and death of Socrates.
It is believed by some me included that three of the pieces are Socratic while the fourth piece the Phaedo is clearly Platonic.
I will not go into detail with that here as I have done so elsewhere. Anyway, one piece is a discussion Socrates has at the door to the courthouse, one of them involves the trial, and the last two deal with conversations that Socrates had prior to his death. Furthermore of these four, two of them simply have the trial and death as a background to other philosophic discourses. What I want to look at here is the trail and death itself as a broader picture.
Many have said and I am once again included that there are similarities between the death of Jesus and the death of Socrates. That in one sense is true but in another sense it isn't.
Some of us not me believe that Jesus was simply a wise teacher, much like Socrates, however many others believe that he is either God or a representation of God. Taking the second idea, the difference is striking because where as Socrates is simply a martyr, Jesus is much more than a martyr.
In fact there is an awful lot of literature outlining the significance of Jesus' death. If Jesus was simply a man who was executed because he said things that upset the ruling class, and gained a following as such, then there is little point in us worshipping him as God particularly since there isn't a religion based around Socrates as a wise teacher, which no doubt he was.
However, that does not necessarily mean that we should ignore the fact that Jesus, like Socrates, was martyred because of his revolutionary speech. In fact, Jesus was much more of a revolutionary than was Socrates. Socrates simply challenged the traditional thinking of his day and attacked the individualistic and licentious attitudes of the Greeks. Socrates basically stated that there was an absolute morality, and that people should be seeking to discover this absolute.
It is clear in two of these texts that he is outlining some form of absolute morality, and further more, accepting the judgement of what was little more than a kangaroo court on the grounds that he had not desire to undermine his teachings. Jesus is many cases is similar, however he does not use the trial as another venue for his teaching, which is not surprising since, unlike Socrates, Jesus was tried in secret surrounded pretty much by a group of people who had already made up their minds about him.
This was not the case with Socrates, since the three hundred members of the jury were present, and a number of them could still be challenged by his views.
Granted he was found guilty, and executed, however it is necessary to remember that Socrates did have a fair trial, Jesus did not. However, Jesus was much more revolutionary than Socrates since Socrates only sought to reform a system that needed reform, whereas Jesus came to pretty much demolish the previous system so as to lay the groundwork of a new system.
Okay, he did say that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, but he also indicated that the period of worshipping God in the temple had come to an end, and the priesthood had become obsolete. What Jesus had effectively done was to take access to God out of the hands of the priesthood and to put it into the hands of the people.
This is a similar thing that we see with Joan of Arc and with Martin Luther. The people had been oppressed by the Church and the truth of God had been obfuscated by a priesthood who were using religion as a means of oppressing the masses. This was something that Jesus never intended. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Plato on the Trial and Death of Socrates , please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Plato on the Trial and Death of Socrates.
Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list ». Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Feb 07, Reading rated it liked it. That there Aristotle sure is more interested in goofy arguments than saving his own god dang life. Apr 15, Martin Wyckmans rated it really liked it.
The Death of Socrates touches topics like whether someone's nature defines his actions or if someone's actions define his nature, patriotism, death and the afterlife and so much more. We see laughter inbetween the sinister shades of Socrates' death and this makes it so the book never bores. Its variety of theme makes it a lot easier to read compared to books like The Republic. Maybe it's counter-intuitive to say, but The Death of Socrates is a good entry-level book for anyone.
As the founder of The Death of Socrates touches topics like whether someone's nature defines his actions or if someone's actions define his nature, patriotism, death and the afterlife and so much more. As the founder of Western philosophy, this story is definitely a must-read. Is someone running fast because he's fast, or is he fast because he's running fast? Is something divine because it's loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it's divine?
Is an essence determined and does it dictate how to act, or is an essence molded by actions taken? Apology, as the name implies, is set during the trial of Socrates. He is accused of crimes like 'corrupting the young' and 'not believing in the gods of Athens'. He tries to persuade the jury of his innocence by firstly adressing those who grew up with a resentment passed on by their parents for Socrates and allowing them to judge for themselves, albeit in the short span of a day, whether Socrates truly is the Boogeyman they grew up with.
Secondly, he moves his argument towards those he has 'wronged' first-hand. He explains how he's in search of true wisdom, since the oracle of Delphos proclaimed him the wisest of men, yet he himself claims to know nothing. Day after day, he finds those proclaimed wise and day after day Socrates is disappointed by the ignorance of those wise men and points this out, justly so.
This ridicule is met by hatred towards the old man. At the same time, there are those who flock to him, for he has the audacity to stand up for the truth.
These 'students' of his, he never meant to corrupt, as the charges state, but if he's discussing something and there are those beside him listening, then that cannot be helped. Socrates is sentenced to death by a margin of 30 people and is brought to his cell. Crito begins by Crito, one of Socrates' followers, sitting beside the old sleeping man. He's determined to smuggle Socrates out of his predicament, but he'll have none of it!
Socrates argues for the state of Athens, how he has lived for 70 years on its lands, raised his own children here and therefore accepts their laws. Socrates explains how he only acts based on what is just and betraying his city would only bring disgrace and perhaps mutiny to the state.
0コメント