Socrates and ancient Greek philosophy

¶ … pious is what all the gods love, the opposite, what all the gods hate, is the impious." How does Socrates react to this definition? Why is this not an adequate definition, and why does it fail to reveal the form?

Socrates is not satisfied with Euthyphro's definition of pious because Euthyphro's definition fails to reveal the form of pious. Socrates believes that forms are perfect models of reality. They are independent and universal. So when Socrates asks Euthyphro to explain what pious means, he expects Euthyphro to provide him with the form of pious. In other words, something Socrates can use and refer to in the future as what it means for something or someone to be pious.

Euthyphro has been engaged in this dialogue because he has claimed to know many things about the gods, what is divine and consequently what is pious. At first, Euthyphro offers his own situation of going to court to prosecute his father for murdering a murderer as an explanation for what is pious. Socrates dismisses this as an example, not a proper definition. Euthyphro agrees and then provides his definition that pious is what all the gods love. As is Socrates way, he asks if they could examine his statement a little closer.

Socrates then gets Euthyphro to admit that the gods loving or not loving piety is a quality of pious and not what pious is. And since Socrates believes this definition to be a quality of something that is pious it is thus not usable as an archetype for pious. Then, he gets Euthyphro to say that piousness is a part of justice like even is a part of numbers, and asks Euthyphro to explain which part it is. Again, Euthyphro's statement falls short of providing Socrates with the form of pious because as a part of justice, and subsequently something that is loved by and cared for by the gods, Euthyphro returns to his already defeated argument that the gods loving or not loving something is simply a quality not a true definition.

Therefore, Socrates reacts to the definition in true Socratic fashion: he asks a lot of questions in an attempt to get the other person to provide him with the answer. Through the questioning, Socrates illustrates that the definition has failed to reveal the form of pious. In fact, what Euthyphro has put forth are only examples and qualities of piousness. Unfortunately for Socrates, Euthyphro's court requirements cut the conversation short before he is able to extract a satisfactory definition.

2. Why does Socrates feel he must address the slanders of his earlier accusers? How does he try to show that he is different from the Sophists? Why does he think that the Sophists are dangerous? What does his testimony reveal about his beliefs in the importance of philosophy?

Socrates feels he must address the slanders of his earlier accusers for a number of reasons. The primary reason is because he feels that those accusers did the most damage to his reputation because they started to work on others during their younger years. They were the first influence on the way others thought about Socrates. Therefore, the youngsters just listened with no real refute of what Socrates original accusers were saying. Basically, these first accusers taught the young men of Athens that Socrates was bad and because they were so influential and the listeners were so young, Socrates must spend the little time he had working to undo what these original accusers had done. Such effort directed at the jurors that had so long believed these horrors about Socrates was necessary for him to ever succeed at ultimately defending himself..

Socrates differs from the Sophists in one very important way: the Sophists were traveling teachers whose goal was to teach others the right way, the way to achievement. However, Socrates never claimed to teach or even know anything. He was focused more on discussion because through discussion he could find the truth about things; through questioning and discourse he could uncover knowledge. Men who were wrong just did not know any better. The Sophists were dangerous for this very reason that they thought they knew; when if fact they did not necessarily know any better, yet they charged people money to teach them!

Socrates' testimony reveals his belief that philosophy is critically important to society. It is critical because it questions supposed truths and alleged facts. Without such thorough questioning, without an in depth, persistent, constant study of knowledge and truth society could not achieve greatness.

3. Explain the ontological argument of St. Anselm, including how it works and what is most convincing. How does Descartes arrive at a similar position? Provide at least two strong objections to the argument.

St. Anselm offered an argument for the existence of God to God himself. This gift to God is based on the premise that Anselm believes in God and does so in order to understand God, because unless he believed he could not understand. Starting with that St. Anselm argues that it is possible to imagine something of which nothing is greater. This great thing he imagines, however, cannot be the greatest thing unless it exists outside of his imagination. This is because the great thing that exists is greater than the great thing that is only in the imagination. Therefore, since he can imagine the greatest thing, it must exist to actually be the greatest thing. In other words, the possibility of imagining that great thing exists necessarily entails that the great thing must really exist. St. Anselm concludes by stating that this greatest thing is, of course, God.