Socrates’ objections to both Euthyphro’s third definition of the holy and his refined version of this third definition relate primarily to the character of interactions between gods and men, which Socrates does not believe Euthyphro’s definitions do justice.
Towards the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro provides a definition of holiness that determines it as a service to the gods; Socrates takes immediate issue with this (Plato, Euthyphro, 12E). Socrates’ primary objection to this definition of holiness lies in the implication that, by doing the gods a service, people are somehow benefitting or bettering the gods. He leads Euthyphro into admitting this by likening his definition of service to the gods to the care of a horseman for horses, of …show more content…
His claim that Euthyphro debases holiness to nothing but an art of commerce (likening it to a marketplace) and rejecting this outright borders on being a strawman argument; he is attacking one possible interpretation of the statement. In order to respond, other interpretations should be considered. Upon examination, it could be argued that everything in nature is an act of ‘commerce’, with everything giving and receiving, part of a reciprocal relationship; this doesn’t have to be cheapening or degrading. In response to Socrates, I could say that the gods attend to humans in return for attendance by the humans. Without the worship of and belief in them by humans, the gods would be non-existent and pointless. There would be no sacrifice or prayer to them, they would disappear from human minds. Their importance in society is upheld only by the continuing faith and reverence of humanity. If no one believed in the gods, they would receive no prayers and no sacrifices, and would be ignored (and rejected), for the consequences of refusing prayer or sacrifice would be null, if no one believed that the gods could implement them. Humans maintain the gods, and the gods, in return, maintain humanity, according to the Greek view. In addition, because Socrates’ objection has so much to do
Towards the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro provides a definition of holiness that determines it as a service to the gods; Socrates takes immediate issue with this (Plato, Euthyphro, 12E). Socrates’ primary objection to this definition of holiness lies in the implication that, by doing the gods a service, people are somehow benefitting or bettering the gods. He leads Euthyphro into admitting this by likening his definition of service to the gods to the care of a horseman for horses, of …show more content…
His claim that Euthyphro debases holiness to nothing but an art of commerce (likening it to a marketplace) and rejecting this outright borders on being a strawman argument; he is attacking one possible interpretation of the statement. In order to respond, other interpretations should be considered. Upon examination, it could be argued that everything in nature is an act of ‘commerce’, with everything giving and receiving, part of a reciprocal relationship; this doesn’t have to be cheapening or degrading. In response to Socrates, I could say that the gods attend to humans in return for attendance by the humans. Without the worship of and belief in them by humans, the gods would be non-existent and pointless. There would be no sacrifice or prayer to them, they would disappear from human minds. Their importance in society is upheld only by the continuing faith and reverence of humanity. If no one believed in the gods, they would receive no prayers and no sacrifices, and would be ignored (and rejected), for the consequences of refusing prayer or sacrifice would be null, if no one believed that the gods could implement them. Humans maintain the gods, and the gods, in return, maintain humanity, according to the Greek view. In addition, because Socrates’ objection has so much to do