Socrates, Plato, and Piety:
A Review of Emelyn-Jones’ article
C. Emlyn-Jones had been following the scholarly debate regarding why Socrates was really on trial. He mentions two works in specific that provide what he considers mutually exclusive interpretations of the given evidence; one claiming impiety was “a front for the political charge” against the “strongly anti-democratic basis to Socrates’ teaching,” the other positing “a Socrates totally without irony and utterly sincere in his desire to convince the jury of his innocence.” He notes that both these theories share the presupposition that the charge of impiety was a “side issue.” Emlyn-Jones strives to demonstrate that this is an unnecessary assumption. He does this by examining what …show more content…
In the Apology, Socrates’ own defense would have him a “modest and ignorant follower of the god,” i.e. someone of great piety, devoted to the god’s will. In Euthyphro, Socrates is someone who is at least interested in what piety is, so he can then know how to act piously. It is the definitions of piety given and deconstructed that further the argument that the charge of piety is significant. Emlyn-Jones observes that all of the definitions Euthyphro, the religious expert, posits, the object of the piety is the gods. That is, definitions are variations on “what the god’s love,” and more importantly, are silent on the relationship between piety and “civic duty,” which Emlyn-Jones insists to be central to the understanding of εὐσέβεια, for which “piety” is a “rather inappropriate” translation. Instead of being confused in the Romano-Christian baggage surrounding piety, εὐσέβεια is the reverence due to those demanding respect, essential for the prosperity of the community as a whole. What makes Socrates so disruptive in Emlyn-Jones’ mind is that he redefines piety, assuming it to be more of a personal relationship with the gods. In essence, he “effectively hijacks the conventional framework of state piety to sanction personal and exclusive relationship with the gods.” This redefinition, especially as fleshed out in the deconstruction of Euthyphro’s attempted elucidations …show more content…
Unfortunately, this article lacks the evidence to make all parts of this claim effectively, and would have been greatly strengthened by the consideration of the religious scene and expectations of piety. In particular, to demonstrate that civic piety was opposed to personal devotion, i.e. that a god wouldn’t demand something specific from an individual, or that such a demand wouldn’t be recognized as legitimate or having repercussions for the city that tried to interfere, as the Socrates of the Apology warns that stopping him would be the thing that is
A Review of Emelyn-Jones’ article
C. Emlyn-Jones had been following the scholarly debate regarding why Socrates was really on trial. He mentions two works in specific that provide what he considers mutually exclusive interpretations of the given evidence; one claiming impiety was “a front for the political charge” against the “strongly anti-democratic basis to Socrates’ teaching,” the other positing “a Socrates totally without irony and utterly sincere in his desire to convince the jury of his innocence.” He notes that both these theories share the presupposition that the charge of impiety was a “side issue.” Emlyn-Jones strives to demonstrate that this is an unnecessary assumption. He does this by examining what …show more content…
In the Apology, Socrates’ own defense would have him a “modest and ignorant follower of the god,” i.e. someone of great piety, devoted to the god’s will. In Euthyphro, Socrates is someone who is at least interested in what piety is, so he can then know how to act piously. It is the definitions of piety given and deconstructed that further the argument that the charge of piety is significant. Emlyn-Jones observes that all of the definitions Euthyphro, the religious expert, posits, the object of the piety is the gods. That is, definitions are variations on “what the god’s love,” and more importantly, are silent on the relationship between piety and “civic duty,” which Emlyn-Jones insists to be central to the understanding of εὐσέβεια, for which “piety” is a “rather inappropriate” translation. Instead of being confused in the Romano-Christian baggage surrounding piety, εὐσέβεια is the reverence due to those demanding respect, essential for the prosperity of the community as a whole. What makes Socrates so disruptive in Emlyn-Jones’ mind is that he redefines piety, assuming it to be more of a personal relationship with the gods. In essence, he “effectively hijacks the conventional framework of state piety to sanction personal and exclusive relationship with the gods.” This redefinition, especially as fleshed out in the deconstruction of Euthyphro’s attempted elucidations …show more content…
Unfortunately, this article lacks the evidence to make all parts of this claim effectively, and would have been greatly strengthened by the consideration of the religious scene and expectations of piety. In particular, to demonstrate that civic piety was opposed to personal devotion, i.e. that a god wouldn’t demand something specific from an individual, or that such a demand wouldn’t be recognized as legitimate or having repercussions for the city that tried to interfere, as the Socrates of the Apology warns that stopping him would be the thing that is