Holiness in Euthyphro Holiness in "Euthyphro" in

Holiness in Euthyphro Holiness in "Euthyphro" In Plato's Euthyphro, the concept of holiness emerges in the dialogue when the title character Euthyphro tells the philosopher Socrates of his intention to prosecute his father. Euthyphro is convinced of his father's guilt and thus sees himself as virtuous for valuing justice over familial respect.

Because Socrates is going to court to defend himself against his accusers, who claim that his teachings corrupt the Athenian youth, it is shown that both Socrates and Euthyphro are going to court for reasons pertaining to a definition of piety or holiness. Socrates is skeptical of Euthyphro's definition of holiness and so pushes his friend to elaborate on what it means to be holy.

Thus the concept of holiness takes a prominent position in the dialogue: Socrates wants a true or established definition of piety, and Euthyphro wants merely to make unsupported assertions. Euthyphro essentially gives three definitions of piety to Socrates. First, he defines holiness by referring to himself as an example of holiness. He states that to be holy is to do as he does, that is to pursue the course of justice, or "prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime" (Plato, 1999, p. 15).

His second definition of holiness is a clarification of the first: Euthyphro states that holiness is something which is loved by the gods. His third definition attempts to clarify still further: he states that holiness is the attempt to learn the ways in which one might please through word and actions the gods above. Socrates refutes each of these three arguments by exposing their subjective nature. Socrates wants objective truth. But Euthyphro's definitions are based ultimately upon the presumption that he is right and therefore need not question himself.

Each definition repeats this presumption. Socrates calls attention to it each time. To the first definition, that holiness is to do as Euthyphro does, Socrates answers by asking whether it is holy to prosecute one's father for murder. Of course this is not what Euthyphro means. Thus, Socrates obliges Euthyphro to explain what he means by prosecuting others and convicting others of some guilt.

To Euthyphro's second definition of holiness, that holiness is that which is loved of the gods, Socrates states that the very gods are always quarreling and fighting and therefore cannot be in agreement about holiness, since none of them love entirely the same things. To Euthyphro's third definition, that holiness is the act of attempting to please the gods, Socrates points out that Euthyphro is but a mere mortal and that the gods are immortal and thus can in no way gain anything from Euthyphro.

In this manner, Socrates points out Euthyphro's pride, lack of humility, and lack of objectivity. For Socrates, all truth is grounded in humility and in objective awareness, as any true definition of holiness should be. Socrates' goal in this dialogue is to show Euthyphro that the latter's understanding of piety is shallow and conceited. Socrates asks Euthyphro to justify his claim.

In this dialogue, Socrates shows himself to be a true philosopher, or epistemologist, who wants "to establish a claim, rather than merely assert it" (Theory of Knowledge, p.105), Euthyphro continues to assert his underlying proposition which is that he is holy because he believes he loves justice and believes he is pleasing to the gods. He never once dares to question the so-called "justice" that he loves or ask himself whether he actually loves justice or merely his own sense of self-righteousness and superiority.

Socrates tries to draw Euthyphro out of his subjective view of holiness and engage with the concept from an objective angle, but each time Euthyphro tries to skirt Socrates' objective approach by asserting a claim rather than establishing one. That it is Socrates' goal to shatter Euthyphro's illusions is clear from his constant questioning of Euthyphro's claims. Socrates constantly takes everything Euthyphro says to its logical conclusion, forcing Euthyphro either to abandon the claim he has asserted or attempt to prop it up with another one (equally insupportable).

My own definition of holiness would be that holiness is union with truth. If truth is good, then holiness is the state of being united to that which is good and true. Socrates is holier than Euthyphro because he attempts to unite himself to truth. Euthyphro is comfortable thinking he already has the truth (even though Socrates plainly shows that he does not).

To my definition of holiness, I think Socrates would respond with more questions, attempting to see whether my claim is carefully established or simply asserted and based upon nothing logical or truthful. He might ask, "How does one unite himself to goodness or to truth? Is it like uniting himself to a.