Throughout the course of this dialogue Plato has recorded between Socrates and Euthyphro there is one clear theme that Socrates pushes Euthyphro to answer- the question of what is piety (holiness/righteousness). However we see by the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro huffs away from Socrates, tired of his little game of questions, and consequently, leaving Socrates (and us) with no answer to the original question, and most likely with even more questions. Can we say something was accomplished in this particular dialogue? I think yes. There was in fact eliminations made in the questioning of piety. We now know that what is loved by the Athenian gods is not holiness (piety), but what is holy (pious) can be loved by the Athenian gods. Because the Athenian gods contradict themselves again and again through their moral inconsistency, we can see this proven true. Extending this to other religions is another question though. Say the Judeo-Christian God for example. Is not what is loved by Him holiness? He is Love, so is He not also Holiness? This sounds like simple truth in this context, but when we apply it also to the more practical application of murder and killing, it is another question. If Yahweh is just, say He were to ask you to kill someone, would you do it? In this context, is that morally wrong? Or is it just? As the theoretical falls away, and the application comes to head, the question becomes more and the truth seems vague. Can Truth be proven objective and will it stand the test of question? I say yes.
P.S. I commented on Dallas' and Francesca's
No comments:
Post a Comment