Be that as it may, I have stolen a few moments in the New Year to begin cracking open some of my new treasures. One book in particular that I wanted to share is an enjoyable translation of Plato by R.E. Allen. It has that particular combination of artistry and directness that is always the sign of a quality translation, and the introduction, though a bit dated (the book was originally published in 1984), is both lucid and very sound-minded when dealing with some of the wilder branches of Platonic speculation. The volume I'm reading has an interesting mix of dialogues, consisting of the Apology, Euthyphro, Meno, Gorgias, Menexenus, and Crito. I've just finished the Euthyphro, which I had not previously read, and wanted to share some thoughts on the dialogue.
The arguments presented in the dialogue centered around defining the nature of holiness and were interesting and thought-provoking. And it was helpful to be reminded once again how much the Greek understanding of divinity differed from our own Christian-derived one. Indeed, one of Socrates' arguments against the notion that holiness is what the god's love are the myths of Homer, Hesiod, and the like, containing as they do examples of divine adultery, patricide, cannibalism, and so on.
 |
| Give me that old time religion. |
One aspect of the dialogue that particularly stood out to me, though, was the character of Euthyphro himself. It can be easy to read the priest as simply another in the seemingly inexhaustible line of puffed-up fools who have their claims to wisdom cut down by Socrates. Yet I would argue that this is something of an ungenerous view to take and does not totally mesh with Plato's presentation of Euthyphro.
To be sure, Euthyphro is so full of his belief in his own piety that he has never really considered what it means to be a good person outside of the rituals and ceremony of Athenian religion. On the other hand, he is kindly disposed to Socrates and has some respect for the philosopher's activities, at least at first. Being told that Socrates has been indicted by Meletus on the charge of corrupting the youth, Euthyphro says that Meletus has "injur(ed) the City at its very hearth by undertaking to wrong you" (3a). Indeed, Euthyphro feels a degree of kinship with Socrates, asserting that they are both ridiculed by the mob for their moral uprightness and closeness to the divine (3c).
If these facts point to a more complex meaning to Euthyphro as character in the dialogue, what can we say about the role that Plato intended for him to play? I think the best place to start building an answer lies in the setting of the dialogue, the steps leading into the court where Socrates is about to begin his trial for impiety that will end with his conviction and execution. Euthyphro has come to court for a trial as well, but as the prosecutor of his own father for murder.
 |
| Reconstruction of the Royal Stoa, setting of the dialogue |
These two cases, however far apart they might seem at first, have striking parallels. In both instances, the trials are not simple questions of legality, but rather important moral stands for Socrates and Euthyphro. While this is obviously the case for Socrates, who prefers to sacrifice his life rather than give up his role as Athens' gadfly, this claim requires some explanation when it comes to Euthyphro. But Euthyphro's prosecution of his father is not motivated by greed or hope of increased social standing, as many Athenian prosecutions were. Indeed, as Euthyphro notes, "I am thought mad" to undertake his case (3e) due to risk of ostracism in the community, and Socrates himself seems shocked at what Euthyphro is setting out to do. Euthyphro nevertheless undertakes the prosecution because he sees it as the morally right and holy thing to do (5e). Given this, I think we must take Euthyphro, like Socrates, to be acting as he does because he thinks it is the right thing to do.
Of course, this brings out the crucial difference between Euthyphro and Socrates: Whereas Socrates admits that he knows nothing and thus avoids public affairs, Euthyphro is certain he has sure knowledge of the nature of holiness, and thus carries out his prosecution. It is only under Socrates' questioning that Euthyphro's actual ignorance is revealed 1. Thus, I think Plato in this dialogue makes a warning against trusting in moral certitude over philosophy when determining a correct course of action. While Euthyphro's desires may be noble and strive for the good, his ignorance of his own ignorance in the end leads him into error. Similarly, Plato would argue, anyone not guided by philosophy can end up travelling down the infernal road paved with good intentions.
1 Indeed, another parallel between Euthyphro and Socrates is recorded in Diogenes Laertius, where Euthyphro is convince of his ignorance by Socrates' questioning and thus abandons his prosecution↩
No comments:
Post a Comment