1 Philosophical Piety in Plato’s Euthyphro Abstract: I argue that, through the course of the argument of Euthyphro, the traditional Greek gods are quietly replaced by universal causal essences or forms. Once this substitution has been made, the traditional conception of piety as the proper way for humans to relate to the gods can be preserved. Socrates exemplifies in his words and deeds this combination of traditional piety and revolutionary philosophical theology. Two questions have dominated debates about how to interpret Plato’s Euthyphro. First, readers wonder whether there is a positive conception of piety implicit in the argument beyond its explicitly unsuccessful conclusion. Second, because of Socrates’ language of i0de/a and ei]dov, there is some question as to whether a Platonic notion of form is at work in the argument. In my view, these questions are intimately connected, and the answer to both is affirmative. Through the course of the argument of Euthyphro, the gods are purged of all their particular, personal characteristics, so that they become universal causal essences or forms. Yet despite this revolutionary understanding of what it means to be a god, it is suggested that the traditional conception of piety as the proper way for humans to relate to the gods should be preserved. Socrates exemplifies in his words and deeds this combination of traditional piety and revolutionary philosophical theology. While it is important to recognize that the dialogue ends in aporia, the life and deeds of Socrates as exemplified in Euthyphro offer a practical example of an attitude towards divine and human things that ties together many of the strands which the theoretical search for a definition cannot. The charges against Socrates are twofold. He is guilty of having improper relations with other human beings – corrupting the youth – and improper views about the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Philosophical Piety in Plato’s Euthyphro
Abstract: I argue that, through the course of the argument of Euthyphro, the traditional
Greek gods are quietly replaced by universal causal essences or forms. Once this
substitution has been made, the traditional conception of piety as the proper way for
humans to relate to the gods can be preserved. Socrates exemplifies in his words and
deeds this combination of traditional piety and revolutionary philosophical theology.
Two questions have dominated debates about how to interpret Plato’s Euthyphro. First,
readers wonder whether there is a positive conception of piety implicit in the argument
beyond its explicitly unsuccessful conclusion. Second, because of Socrates’ language of
i0de/a and ei]dov, there is some question as to whether a Platonic notion of form is at
work in the argument. In my view, these questions are intimately connected, and the
answer to both is affirmative. Through the course of the argument of Euthyphro, the
gods are purged of all their particular, personal characteristics, so that they become
universal causal essences or forms. Yet despite this revolutionary understanding of what
it means to be a god, it is suggested that the traditional conception of piety as the proper
way for humans to relate to the gods should be preserved. Socrates exemplifies in his
words and deeds this combination of traditional piety and revolutionary philosophical
theology. While it is important to recognize that the dialogue ends in aporia, the life and
deeds of Socrates as exemplified in Euthyphro offer a practical example of an attitude
towards divine and human things that ties together many of the strands which the
theoretical search for a definition cannot.
The charges against Socrates are twofold. He is guilty of having improper
relations with other human beings – corrupting the youth – and improper views about the
2
gods.1 The Euthyphro answers both these charges. In the dialogue, Socrates sets up the
dialectical investigation of Euthyphro’s views as a cross-examination of the grounds for
his prosecution of his father in the following terms:
Whereas, by Zeus, Euthyphro, you think that your knowledge of the divine (peri\
tw~n qei/wn) and of piety and impiety (kai\ tw~n o9si/wn te kai\ a0nosi/wn), is so
accurate that, when those things happened as you say, you have no fear of having
acted impiously in bringing your father to trial.(4e)2
Euthyphro has just dismissed his family’s objections to his prosecution of his father on
the grounds that they do not know “how the divine stands to piety and impiety” (to_ qei=on
w(v e1xei tou= o9si/ou te pe/ri kai\ tou= a0nosi/ou - 4e). Socrates sets up the rest of the
dialogue as an investigation of Euthyphro’s views about these two distinct but
interrelated questions: 1) what is the nature of the divine? 2) what is the nature of piety
and impiety? The dialogue is an examination of these two questions, of what it is to be a
god, and what is the proper relation for human beings to these divinities.
1 The traditional Greek conception of piety includes both a religious and an ethical
aspect, and it is difficult to distinguish clearly between religious from a non-religious
virtue. As Versényi (1982: 1) writes, “Although the gods and all that concerned them
were certainly proper objects of eusebia, and to this extent piety was a religious term
even in the modern restricted sense of the word, eusebia did not in fact necessarily
involve a direct relationship of men to the gods or objects and acts directly pertaining to
their worship in a narrow sense. It also required reverence toward the dead, the
veneration of parents and ancestors, the proper relation toward all one’s blood relatives,
and indeed, in its most extended use, the right relationship of man to all other members of
his community.” On my interpretation of Euthyphro, Plato is making a distinction
between religious and non-religious duties, in the bifurcation of human and divine
qerapei/a, for example, but he is ultimately trying to show how true ethical virtue
towards humans is radically dependent upon true reverence and piety towards the gods. 2 All citations from the Euthyphro are from the G.M.A. Grube translation, in Plato:
Complete Works. ed. J. M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson (Indianapolis: Hackett) 1997.
All citations from other Platonic dialogues are also from this volume.
3
In answer to the first question, the argument of Euthyphro rethinks what it means
to be a god by progressively suggesting that a god must be something more like a
Platonic form than a traditional Homeric divinity. Once the connection between the
essences and the traditional gods is made, the conception of what it is to be a god
undergoes a kind of philosophical purification. A god must be a universal beyond
particulars, it must be the cause of the particulars it governs, it must exclude all
difference and opposition within itself, and it cannot be opposed to other gods, i.e. the
differences among the gods must be held within the unity of the highest god. Yet once
the conception of what a god is has undergone the philosophical purification of Socrates’
elenchus, what it means to hold a pious attitude toward the divine is not substantially
changed.
It is not a new suggestion that a simple notion of Platonic form is present in
Euthyphro. In his classic work Plato’s ‘Euthyphro’ and the Earlier Theory of the Forms,
R.E. Allen has shown, quite convincingly, that a theory of forms is implied in the
dialectical search for a definition of piety in that dialogue,3 one which is not identical to
the more fully explicated view of forms in later dialogues, but which is not incompatible
with it either. Similarly, many readers find in the dialogue an implicit idea of what true
piety is, as exemplified by Socrates, beyond the Euthyphro’s explicitly negative
3 Allen summarizes the notion of form in Euthyphro as follows: Socrates “assumes, in
pursuing his inquiry, that there is an i0de/a, or ei]dov, a Form, of holiness, and that this
form is a universal, the same in all holy things (5d, 6d-e). He further supposes that the
Form may be used as a standard, by which to judge what things are holy and what are not
(6e); that it is an essence, by which or in virtue of which holy things are holy (6d); and
that it is capable of real or essential definition (11a, 12c-d). These assumptions constitute
a theory of Forms.” See Allen (1970: 67-8). My interpretation is in full agreement with
all these points, though it expands upon them.
4
conclusion.4 That the highest god is equated with the good itself was once a common
reading of 13e5-14c5,5 and that philosophy is being in some sense divinized has also
been suggested.6 But I think it is only when we can draw all these suggestions into a
coherent whole that the real argument of the Euthyphro becomes clear. In the
interpretation that follows, I will attempt to show that the five definitions7 constitute a
continuous argument which redefines ta_ qei=a as the forms and the good as the form of
the forms, and then shows that the older piety reflects the proper reverence and awe
towards divinity. The Euthyphro is an important text for seeing how the Socratic-
Platonic philosophical purification of traditional Greek religion preserves rather than
undermines the subordination of the human to the divine and the primacy of our
obligations to the gods.
In his important study Aristotle and the Theology of the Living Immortals,
Richard Bodéüs argues that identifying Greek metaphysics with theology is
anachronistic. Although the goal of his book is to argue that Aristotle’s perfectly
traditional view of Greek divinity can be read at face value only once one realizes that for
him the theoretical science of ousia has no theological significance, Bodéüs extends his
conclusion back to Plato, who does speak straightforwardly and uncritically of the Greek
4 C.C.W. Taylor claims that it contains “fairly clear hints of a conclusion which is not
explicitly drawn.” See Taylor (2008: 66). See McPherran’s account of the debate
concerning whether Euthyphro contains a positive doctrine of piety, in McPherran (1996:
29-31). 5 For a critical summary of these readings of the passage, see Versenyi (1982: 106-112).
6 See for example, Anderson (1967) where he argues that the dialectic is divinized. In
contrast, I hope to show that the forms are divinized, while dialectic reflects a properly
pious attitude towards these divinities. 7 Øyvind Rabbås (2005) offers another persuasive treatment of the attempted definitions
in which there are ultimately three principal definitions, the other definitions serving as
secondary attempts at revising these three central proposals. See Rabbås (2005: 291-
309).
5
gods in Phaedrus, Timaeus and Laws: “The fact that Plato required a transcendent world
of Ideas did not place him in opposition to this perspective: the gods described in the
Laws, the Timaeus, and the Phaedrus do not belong to the world beyond, but are the
beings in our world who most perfectly attain knowledge of the immutable. This is why
Plato offers them as models for our imitation.”8 My interpretation of Euthyphro belongs
to the “prevailing view” of Plato’s thought which Bodéüs seeks to undermine. Without
considering Plato’s views of traditional religion more generally, I merely want to suggest
through this interpretation that Euthyphro contains indications, however tentative and
implicit, that Plato was indeed willing to judge the adequacy of traditional theological
conceptions in the light of his own metaphysical views.
First Definition
Consider Euthyphro’s very first definition, which contains many details of crucial
significance for interpreting the dialogue that have mostly gone unappreciated. I break
Euthyphro’s first attempt into 5 distinct points:
(1) I say that the pious is to do what I am doing now, (2) to prosecute the
wrongdoer, be it about murder or temple robbery or anything else, (3) whether the
wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else, not to prosecute is
impious. (4) And observe, Socrates, that I can cite powerful evidence that the law is
so. I have already said to others that such actions are right, not to favor the
ungodly, whoever they are. (5) These people themselves believe (oi9 a!nqrpwpoi
8 Bodéüs (2000: 31-2).
6
tugxa&nousi nomi/zontev)9 that Zeus is the best and most just of the gods, yet they
agree that he bound his father because he unjustly swallowed his sons, and that he
in turn castrated his father for similar reasons. But they are angry with me because
I am prosecuting my father for his wrongdoing. They contradict themselves in
what they say about the gods and about me. (5d8-6a5)
Euthyphro’s definition contains important points about the nature of the gods, as well as
the nature of what constitutes piety and impiety, or the proper human relation to the gods.
Starting with point #5, Euthyphro argues, in conformity with the traditional Greek
viewpoint, that there is one god (Zeus) above all the rest, a divinity which is the most
good and the most just. This highest god, he argues, should serve as a model for pious
human actions, in that the measure of what constitutes a pious human is the imitation of
this highest divine principle. Socrates will dispute the particular actions here being
ascribed to divinity, but not the way that the highest divinity should be the measure of
human actions.
That Euthyphro imitates his own conception of divinity is implicit in the very first
point of his definition –piety defined as “that which I am doing right now” (o3per e0gw_
nu=n poiw~). Taken in the context of the dialogue as a whole, this refers to more than just
the claim that Euthyphro’s present action – prosecuting his father for murder – is pious.
Rather, this answer contains both sides of what emerges as Euthyphro’s viewpoint, his
absolute confidence in the indisputable piety of his own particular actions and
9 I will argue later that Socratic piety contrasts with Euthyphro’s view in that it heeds not
what men happen to believe, but the divine forms beyond human opinion.
7
perspective, and his conception of the gods, whom he imitates.10
He holds a voluntarist
concept of divinity – that a god constitutes what is pious simply through freely acting,
without reference to some measure of the pious independent of these divine actions. From
a voluntarist theological viewpoint, the gods make an act pious, by perceiving, saying, or
doing anything.11
If asked to define the pious, this is exactly the answer Euthyphro’s
Zeus would give - ‘exactly what I am doing right now’ – for it is the doing that causes
any particular act to be pious. Euthyphro’s imitation of the highest divinity applies not
only to the particular actions he is executing, but also to the causal source of their being
pious.
The second and fourth points made by Euthyphro are intimately connected: being
pious involves prosecuting people who act impiously.12
Piety involves living in
accordance with divine or religious law, and pursuing those who do not live up to this
law. The third point is that this law must be used to measure the actions of everyone
indifferently, without regard for the particular position or role of the law’s transgressor,
or the relation between the prosecutor and the prosecuted. Within the oikos, which is the
sphere of Euthyphro’s case involving the father, the household slave and the pela/thv,
this means that anyone should be prosecuted “whether the wrongdoer is your father or
10
These two sides will be brought together in Socrates’ refutation of Euthyphro’s third
definition of piety, treated below. 11
A theological voluntarism is the divine version of the sophistic position which Plato
elsewhere opposes – that man is the measure of all things, that if he perceives something,
it is as he perceives it, with no independent measure of the truth or falsity of this
perception. 12
The wording here is important – piety demands that one not trust, rely upon, or yield to
the impious person (mh\ e0pitre/pein tw|~ a0sebou=nti – 5e4-5) – but rather, judge or
prosecute them. This idea of a duty to judge and evaluate is present in Socrates’ question
at 9e4-7: “Then let us again examine whether that is a sound statement, or do we let it
pass, and if one of us, or someone else merely says that something is so, do we accept
that it is so, do we accept that it is so? Or should we examine what the speaker means?”
8
your mother or anyone else.” Relative to the city, which is the sphere of Meletus’ case
against Socrates, as well as Socrates’ own philosophical activity, this means that impiety
must be prosecuted regardless of the particular social role or status of the guilty party:
poet, artist, politician, craftsman, or even, as in the case of Socrates’ cross-examination in
this dialogue, prophet.
As Steven Burns notes,13
none of the points I have labeled 2-5 are refuted by
Socrates, and the possibility that these are retained in the Platonic conception of piety
must be seriously considered. Where Socrates does depart from Euthyphro’s account is
of course in the traditional characterization of the pantheon as comprehending different
and opposed perspectives and the conflicts and hatred that result. This is the heart of the
charges against Socrates. Socrates corrects Euthyphro’s original assumption that his
prosecution for religious innovation and introducing new gods refers to his daimon. But
in his rejection of divine discord, Socrates is a revolutionary theologian. In other words,
Socrates finds unacceptable the conception of a god as a particular, self-interested
perspective opposable to other particular, self-interested perspectives.
The logical problem with the definition is closely related to this theological
deficiency. This conception of the gods is not sufficiently universal for what are the best
and most just kinds of being. The problem with the definition is that Euthyphro has
given one or two particular instances of piety, but no perspective comprehensive of these
viewpoints which, until reconciled, can be opposed and even antagonistic to one another.
What is required beyond particular instances is “that form itself by means of which all
11). What must be disclosed by a definition, Socrates reminds Euthyphro, is a universal
cause of each particular instance’s being what it is, responsible for them all having this
characteristic. Socrates’ statement of this new demand shows that everything that had
been true of Euthyphro’s gods is taken up into Socrates’ forms:
Tell me then what this form (th\n i0de/an) itself is, so that I may look upon it, and,
using it as a model (paradei/gmati), say that any action of yours or another’s that
is of that kind is pious, and if it is not that it is not. (6e3-6)
In asking for the next definition in these terms, Socrates positively incorporates all the
acceptable points which Euthyphro has brought up in the first definition (points 2-5
above), thereby assimilating his own view of the idea to what it is to be a god, and
opening up the possibility that piety can involve the proper relation to the divine ei1dh in
things. The form is a principle by which one can judge acts to be either pious or impious,
serving as an objective measure or divine law to be obeyed and to be used to judge the
guilt of those who disobey (points # 2 and 4 above).14
This law applies to anyone’s
actions, regardless of who they are (point #3 above). Further, like Zeus in Euthyphro’s
initial response, the form can be imitated as a model or paradigm regulating one’s own
actions (point #5 above).15
Second Definition
14
Allen’s account of the forms as standards is excellent: “Knowing the form is a
condition for recognizing its instances: to ask what holiness is, is to ask for knowledge of
a criterion by which to distinguish things which are holy from things which are not.” See
Allen (1970: 72). 15
The point about Zeus as the highest god among the gods will only be taken up by
Socrates again in what I treat as the fourth definition. See my treatment below.
10
Euthyphro then volunteers a second definition: “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is
not is impious” (7a). Socrates is pleased with the correction of the particularity of the
first logos – this is a universal definition which expresses what is common to all
instances. Further, insofar as Euthyphro is actually answering Socrates’ demand that the
definition yield a cause which is universal, this definition implies that “the form itself by
which all pious things are pious” is the loving activity of a god.16
Through the activity of
loving something, a god is responsible for the particular object’s being pious. At this
point in the argument, Euthyphro’s answer further suggests that the forms are gods,
active universal causes responsible for making particulars what they are.
Socrates immediately clarifies what is implied in Euthyphro’s conception of piety:
“Come then, let us examine what we mean. An action or a man dear to the gods is pious,
but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious” (7a). Euthyphro here assumes a
certain picture of the world and the relation between divinity and humanity within it. On
the one hand there are particular actions or particular men, and on the other hand there
are the causes of these particulars being what they are, the gods, with nothing in between.
This is essential to Euthyphro’s voluntarist conception of deity: no stable universals
stand beyond the gods and particulars, and nothing exists outside of the will of the gods
to measure the truth or falsity of their beliefs or actions. As a result, there is no way of
discerning the reason behind divine activity – the gods act freely, without the constraint
of any logical necessity. In this view of the relation between divinity and humanity, only
one person can actually communicate the divine will to humanity – the prophet who,
16
Whether the gods, through holding something dear, are actually the causes of that
thing’s being pious, will become explicitly investigated in the discussion of the third
definition.
11
through a privileged, otherwise inaccessible knowledge of divinity, reveals the divine
will to the ignorant, non-prophetic many. The prophet’s attitude is repeatedly manifested
by Euthyphro throughout the dialogue, through his references to his privileged
knowledge, inaccessible to others.17
Without any objective mediation between the gods
and particulars, in the absence of the immediate presence of a god pronouncing legal
judgments, it is the prophet who is the mediator between divine causality and sensible
particularity. For Socrates, the forms, as the philosophically accessible mediation
between the gods and the sensible world, relieve Euthyphro and other prophets of this
task.
Through their further consideration of Euthyphro’s traditional belief about the
differences of perspective, discord and hatred existing among the gods in the pantheon, a
mediating term will be implicitly introduced into the discussion. The question arises,
concerning what do the gods differ? They do not disagree about quantitative or
mathematical matters, such as number, size, weight, because such differences of opinion
can be easily settled through the existence of a measure or standard, equally applicable to
all similar quantities, against which any dispute can be easily resolved. Because of the
existence of a measure independent of the gods and independent of particular quantities,
the occasion for passionate disputes disappears. By extension, it is the absence of such
an independent measure that will make passionate disputes between the gods possible. If
Socrates is going to show that the ancient conceptions of divine discord are untenable,
these independent measures will need to be discovered for everything about which one
might disagree.
17
See below, pp. 15-17.
12
Initially it appears that, as opposed to mathematical concepts, ethical concepts do
lack such an independent measure,18
and so it is subjects like the just, the beautiful and
the good, along with their opposites, that make gods and humans disagree passionately.
Here the content of this mediation between gods and humans begins to emerge. The
possibility of divine harmony on such ethical questions implies the recognition of
objective, universally recognized measures independent of particular perspectives,
whether human or divine. Up to this point in the dialogue, the ei]dov has been discussed
only in terms of the form of piety – now the possibility of a whole world of ei1dh is
opened up.
At this point the second definition breaks down. If gods perceive different things
as just, beautiful, and good, if perceiving something as just, beautiful, and good means
holding it dear, and if the pious is what is dear to the gods, then the gods cannot serve as
a genuine measure of determining whether something is pious or its opposite. While
there is nothing impossible about the same particular being pious in one respect and
impious in another19
, this is not possible of the form of piety itself,20
which is completely
self-identical (the same as itself). But the goal of disclosing this universal form and
expressing it in a definition is to have a standard against which particulars can be
measured and judged. This definition, when combined with the traditional theology, is
incoherent, and provides no way of measuring the piety of particulars. In the discussion
18
This transition in the argument is like the ascent from the mathematical, dianoetic part
of the upper half of the Platonic line, to the eidetic, where one makes the transition from
objective quantitative measures to objective qualitative measures. This is also the concern
of the Meno, which seeks a definition of virtue adequate to the mathematical definition of
shape, as well as the Phaedo, which seeks to convert the Pythagoreans Cebes and
Simmias from their mathematical understanding of soul to an eidetic grasp of soul. 19
See Burns (1985: 316-17) who cites Allen (1970: 34) on this point. 20
“They are not the same, but quite opposite, the pious and impious.” (7a)
13
that follows, this will be corrected through purging the discord and difference of ethical
perception from the divine pantheon.
Thus Socrates brings out the practical consequence of the failure of Euthyphro’s
second definition – if the pious is what the gods love, and the act can be loved by some
gods and hated by others, then Euthyphro cannot claim confidently that the prosecution
of his father is a pious act. Euthyphro wants to deny the uncertainty of his own particular
case, and he does so by moving from the particularity of the case to a greater level of
generality: “I think, Socrates, that on this subject no god would differ from another, that
whoever has killed unjustly should pay the penalty” (8b). Socrates’ brief response again
points to the forms as objective measures between the gods and particular men and
actions.
Socrates proceeds by focusing on human disputes, and then applying the
conclusion to divine disputes. Our disputes do not occur at the level of generality
suggested by Euthyphro, for everyone simply assumes the existence of the law and agrees
that deviation from the law must be punished. Humans do not
dispute that they must not pay the penalty if they have done wrong, but I
think they deny doing wrong….they do not dispute that the wrongdoer
must be punished, but they may disagree as to who the wrongdoer is, what
he did, and when. (8c-d)
The dispute occurs at the level of the application of the general law to the man or
deed in its particularity. Assumed here is that the existence of a standard of justice, that
justice is good, and that deviation from this measure is bad and must be corrected. There
exists an absolute which demands recognition beyond this difference of particular
14
perspectives. A voluntarist perspective, at least in relation to human reason and action, is
not tenable, a consequence expressed beautifully by Socrates’ comment that, no matter
what claims men make in order to defend themselves, “[t]hey do not say or do just
anything” (8c9). This claim is then extended to the gods – even if they do disagree (a
possibility which Socrates denies) – they do not disagree about just anything – there are
certain general principles which must be recognized by both gods and men: that justice
exists, that it is the measure by which we evaluate the justice of particular actions, and
that actions or men which fall short must be prosecuted: “no one among gods or men
ventures to say that the wrongdoer must not be punished” (8d11-13). The existence of a
stable, rational measure of speech and action, both human and divine, further solidifies
the introduction of the forms as an objective, rational mediation between divinity and
humanity. Although it is not yet recognized by Euthyphro, this constitutes a rational
limit on the arbitrary freedom of the traditional divinities. Everyone, whether god or
human, acknowledges there is a standard, a measure, of justice – and the question that is
disputed is whether or not a particular instance lives up to this standard or falls short of it.
The existence of forms of the virtues is thus further secured through placing these
universals beyond the differences of opinion that pit god against god and human against
human.
To establish whether a particular case is or is not an example of injustice, Socrates
demands proof (tekmh/rion), that Euthyphro show forth something clear (safe\v
e0ndei/casqai) – and once he manifests this to him sufficiently (moi i9kanw~v e0ndei/ch),
Socrates will never stop praising (e0gkwmia/zwn) him for his wisdom (9a1-b2).
Euthyphro, like the gods in which he believes, does not show forth the clear reason for
15
the piety of his particular action.21
What form would such a clear proof take? The
disclosure of the law or ei]dov against which the particulars are being measured, rather
than the unpredictable and arbitrary perception and actions of the traditional gods. A
disclosure of the form by which the truth of divine perception and love is measured
would disclose the reason for the gods’ love of the act.
As a result, rather than continuing to focus on the particularity of Euthyphro’s
actions, Socrates shifts the discussion back once again to the level of the ei]dov of piety.
In the same way that the clear piety of Euthyphro’s particular case presupposes the
purgation of divine discord on the subject of the action, the third definition begins with a
thorough purgation of divine discord from the ei]dov of piety. Euthyphro’s correction
relative to particulars, that a pious act is one that all the gods love, is thus drawn into the
logos itself (e0n tw|~ lo/gw| - 9d2) – one might add, into the object which the logos aims to
define, the eidos - and this purgation of any opposition from the self-identical universal
causes forms the basis for Euthyphro’s third definition of piety.
Third Definition
Euthyphro’s third definition has received by far the most philosophical attention
and scrutiny of any part of the dialogue, so I will not dwell on its details. The third
definition shifts the argument from judging particular cases back to the essence, now
purged of all conflict and difference at the level of the universal cause. The heart of the
discussion of this third definition is where causal priority is to be located: in the god’s
love, or the essence of the object loved? The basic point is clear – Euthyphro claims that
21
Euthyphro is here again imitating his conception of divinity – where the reasons for
divine actions are not given clearly. More praiseworthy would be the Socratic conception
of divinity, which pours forth such justifications for anyone to apprehend.
16
to be pious is to be loved by all the gods, and to be impious is to be hated by all the gods.
An object’s being loved is a change to or affection of that object, although it is not caused
by the passive object, but rather by the active agent. If piety is being loved by all the
gods, the predicate of this definition, being loved by all the gods, is caused by the agent
and not the affected object.
Socrates asks whether the pious is loved by all the gods because it is pious, or
whether it is pious because it is loved by all the gods. Euthyphro’s answer is what yields
the breakdown of the third definition: the pious, he agrees, is loved because it is pious.
He does not have to concede this point, which leads him to inevitable contradiction, as
some interpreters have noticed.22
Why does he do so?
I suggest it is inherent in Euthyphro’s prophetic stance that he do so – for the
other side of his divine voluntarism is his absolute confidence in his own prophetic
insight into the truth of his own judgment on the piety of his prosecution. The
contradiction in Euthyphro’s viewpoint is thus forced by an essential feature of the
prophetic profession to which he belongs: Euthyphro’s divine voluntarism (a distinction
between completely free divinities on the one hand, and particular men, actions and
events on the other, with no mediation) conflicts with his total confidence in his own
prophetic analysis of particulars, in this case, the piety of his prosecution of his father.
The contradiction is generated through bringing the consequences of his voluntarism into
conflict with his confidence in the piety of his own actions. On the one hand the gods
determine what constitutes piety by their love, but on the other the act itself is lovable
because of the presence of piety within it. Euthyphro’s own action could not be reliably
22
See Allen (1970: 44).
17
thought to be pious if it were radically dependent on the unpredictable will of the gods. It
must therefore be in itself lovable and pious.
The conclusion of the third definition is that being loved by the gods might be
true of all pious acts, but it is not the active cause of their being pious intrinsic to what
piety is, but rather a universal affection or accident that belongs to all pious things
through an external relation. Though it may be present in every case of piety, it is not the
causal ou0si/a of the thing’s being pious, but rather a pa/qov.
The fact that all the gods love the same things, and that they perceive the same
things as good, beautiful or just, means that the possibility for divergence between divine
perception and the object of divine perception has been eliminated – each god perceives
the true nature of the object, and thus all gods perceive these objects in the same way.
Here the gods are no longer the causes of a particular being a particular: the forms have
taken over their role as causal governors of the world of human actions and events and
sensible particulars. The causal role initially played by the gods’ love is now being
played by the justice, goodness, or beauty intrinsic to an object – what is loved are these
essential forms in the particulars.23
What is accomplished in this third definition is a purgation of subjectivity from
divine principles. The gods’ perception of an object and the like or dislike which follows
from the perception is subordinate causally to the object of love – it is not caused by
23
The digression which falls between the third and fourth definition (11b-e), in which a
confused Euthyphro accuses Socrates of destabilizing his statements which in and of
themselves are completely coherent and stable, follows the same logic as the point of the
third definition. Are Euthyphro’s views destabilized because they are unstable, or are
they destabilized because of Socrates’ dialectical activity? The answer to this question is
central to the question of whether Socrates is guilty of corruption, or whether he is
actually purifying the city of its false and contradictory views. [reference omitted for
blind review]
18
being loved, but being loved is caused by its intrinsic nature. While being loved by the
cause might be a universal property of the pious, it is not an essential property, because it
is not the cause of anything being pious – it is merely a pa/qov of the object. As a result,
insofar as the gods all love the pious act or man, but they are not the active cause of its
being pious, the traditional divinities lose their explanatory role in the pursuit of piety (or
justice, beauty, goodness, etc.), they become accidental to the piety, justice, or goodness
of a particular.24
The universal forms have now completely usurped the place in the of the
traditional gods as the active causes of particular instances and paradigmatic laws which
measure the adequacy of these particulars.
Fourth Definition
At this point in the argument, the role played by the gods as causes of particular men and
their acts being pious has been replaced by the form or ousia of piety. The gods, now
understood as the forms, have been purged of their subjective, particular character.
Universal essences have usurped the causative role of the gods in the sensible human
world. The fourth definition and its surrounding discussion restores Zeus, the one highest
divinity, beyond the divine causal essences.
24
The gods are not necessarily eliminated from this Platonic cosmos – but they are now
brought under the same divine laws and principles that govern human beings, and their
causal, governing role has been taken over by the causal essences. McPherran is
excellent on this point: “once Euthyphro insists on this latter idea and is thereby forced to
concede that the piety of an action is thus ultimately justified by reference to god-
independent standards of virtue, the authority of the gods and their commandments must
be acknowledged as derivative: one obeys the commands of the gods not because they
come from more powerful beings that one ought to fear and placate, but rather, because
as wholly good and virtuous beings the gods, more so than any human, must themselves
behave (and thus speak) in a fashion consonant with the universal dictates of nature.” See
McPherran (1996: 46).
19
Having implicitly established the existence of the forms, Socrates now takes over
the argument from Euthyphro. Whereas the previous definitions had been proposed by
Euthyphro, Socrates for the first time proposes his own definition, and in doing so
introduces the question of how the forms are related to one another. He asks Euthyphro
whether the pious is a more particular concept contained within the more general concept
of justice – what will after Aristotle be referred to as the relation of a species to a genus.
What this relationship between ideas or forms introduces is a multiplicity of distinct
forms which fall into a hierarchical relation, with more general and comprehensive forms
lying above the more particular ones they comprehend. In asking whether everything
pious is just, and conversely, whether everything just is pious, it is this hierarchical
relation that is introduced into the discussion.
This hierarchical relation of more and less universal forms is initially introduced
through the interpretation of a poetic reflection on fear and shame which Socrates cites:
You are not willing to name25
Zeus the doer, that is, the one who grew all
these things. For whenever there is fear, there is also shame. (12a9-12b1)
In this fragment from an unknown poet, we have the first mention of Zeus in the dialogue
since Euthyphro’s first attempted definition at 5e, where Zeus, the best and most just of
all the gods, served as the justifying model for Euthyphro’s prosecution of his father.
Here the name of Zeus, the god responsible for all things (who grows and does all
25
There is some dispute over how the text should read at this point. The manuscripts
have e0qe/loiv ei0pei=n, which Burnet has emended as e0qe/loiv neikei=n (you do not wish to
quarrel with Zeus). The manuscript version conforms more easily to my own reading of
the text, where Zeus as cause of all things is tacitly identified with the Good itself, though
this is never spoken.
20
things), remains unspoken out of fear and shame.26
This poetic idea, I think, frames how
one is to interpret the result of the discussion of this fourth definition, as we will see
below. A highest principle, the universal cause of all things, will be evoked but remain
unspoken.
It is striking that Socrates should bring the meaning of fear and shame into the
discussion to illustrate the logical relation of genus to species. Is this choice of example
meaningful? Fear is a recurring theme in the dialogue,27
since Socrates is astonished that
Euthyphro is so confident in his knowledge of the gods and piety that he does not fear
acting unjustly or impiously in his prosecution: “Whereas, by Zeus, Euthyphro, you think
that your knowledge of the divine, and of piety and impiety, is so accurate that, when
those things happened as you say, you have no fear of having acted impiously in bringing
your father to trial” (4e4-8). At the conclusion of the dialogue, this same idea is further
refined and brought in relation to the idea of shame: “If you had no clear knowledge of
piety and impiety you would never have ventured to prosecute your old father for murder
on behalf of a servant. For fear of the gods you would have been afraid to take the risk
lest you should not be acting rightly, and would have been ashamed before men, but now
I know well that you believe you have clear knowledge of piety and impiety” (15d4-8).
Do fear and shame, used in the fourth definition as an illustration of a logical
relationship, contribute something substantial to the concept of piety?
26
The word ai0dw&v has two possibly interconnected meanings. 1) reverence or high
esteem for another; 2) shame. One perhaps feels shame as a result of the reverence one
feels for another and the feeling of one’s own inadequacy in comparison. Both meanings
seem plausible until ai0de/omai is associated with ai0sxu/nomai and defined as fear of a
reputation for evil (12b9-10), suggesting that Plato means shame and not reverence. 27
In fact, the word eu0se/beia literally mean ‘well-fearing’, derived from the verb sebei=n.
See Versenyi (1982: 1).
21
It is helpful to pay close attention to the way Socrates sets up his parallel
examples. Fear is the more general concept (it is larger – ple/on), shame the more
restricted concept which falls under it. He explains the illustration with yet another
example:
Shame is a part of fear just as odd is a part of number, with the result that
it is not true that where there is number there is also oddness, but that
where there is oddness there is also number. (12c5-8)
The more extensive concept, fear, is associated with number, while shame, which is
defined as fearing and dreading a reputation for evil (do/can ponhri/av), is associated
with the odd. The even is associated with a kind of fear that is not explicitly identified.
The resulting divisions look as follows:
Fear Number
/ \ / \
Shame ? Odd Even
These examples are then used to clarify the original terms of justice and piety:
See what comes next: if the pious is a part of the just, we must, it seems,
find out what part of the just it is. Now if you asked me something of
what we mentioned just now, such as what part of number is even, and
what number that is, I would say it is the number that is divisible into two
equal (i0soskelh/v), not unequal (skalhno\v), parts. (12d5-10)
22
Euthyphro offers a definition of the two divisions of justice to complete the three parallel
bifurcations:
I think, Socrates, that the godly and pious is the part of the just that is
concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of
men is the remaining part of justice. (12e5-8)
The three examples can be mapped out as follows
Fear Number Justice
/ \ / \ / \
Shame ? Odd Even Human28
Piety
justice
fear of ? number number justice justice
reputation divisible divisible about about
(do/can) into unequal into equal qerapei/a qerapei/a
for evil parts (scalene) parts (isosceles) of men of gods
Plato seems to have organized these three parallel bifurcations in a significant
way, beyond their merely illustrative value for the fourth definition. At the very least
there is an important correspondence between shame and human justice, the fear opposed
to shame. Shame is the part of fear concerning our appearance to other human beings,
and the word for reputation – do/ca – is the same Plato elsewhere uses for opinion as
opposed to genuine knowledge. Here we fear about how we appear. The other kind of
fear not explicitly named opposed to this shame before men is the fear concerning what
we actually are, our being as opposed to our mere seeming. While the second kind of fear
28
See Taylor (2008: 64): “Ordinary Greek wisdom would naturally appropriate the term
dikaiosune as the name of the virtue of social relations with human agents…”
23
in these divisions goes unnamed at this point of the dialogue, the (already cited) later
passage at 15d which closes the dialogue fills in this gap in a very suggestive way:
distinct from the shame one feels before men is the fear of the gods, which is glossed as a
fear of not acting rightly. As opposed to the fear of appearing evil in the eyes of another
human (one’s being relative to another), there is a fear of being and doing evil in reality,
measured by the gods or divine forms as the true measure of ethical virtues independently
of appearances before other humans.
Why choose to illustrate these through the division of odd and even number,
characterized geometrically as scalene and isosceles? Allen’s note on this peculiar
division is instructive:
The terms ‘isosceles’ and ‘scalene’ are in fact simply metaphors, whose
explanation has been kindly suggested to me by Professor Cherniss. i0soskelh/v
means equal-legged; skalhno/v means uneven, unequal, or rough, and is probably
related to skolio/v, crooked, bent, or twisted. Even numbers, being divisible into
two equal and integral parts, are ‘isosceles’; odd numbers are scalene because they
are not so divisible – they limp.29
Even numbers thus characterized in this context represent what is uniform and equal to
itself, reminding us of the earlier characterization of the forms of piety and impiety by
Socrates as au0to\ au9tw|~ and au9tw|~ o3moion – the same as itself, like itself. This
thinkable self-identity is associated through the parallel divisions with justice in our
relation to the gods and fear of the gods understood as the forms, the fear of actually
being evil, measured by the true forms of the virtues. Odd numbers, characterized by
29
See Allen (1970: 50), fn. 1.
24
their inequality or difference from themselves, their roughness, their irregularity, are
associated with the instability and relativity of human convention and appearances, on the
side of shame as the fear for our reputation, and justice as characterizing inter-human
relations. To use a Platonic categorization not explicitly present in Euthyphro, fear of the
gods, piety as care for the gods, and even numbers are on the side of being, stability,
reality, the absolute, while shame, care for humans, and odd numbers are on the side of
becoming, change, appearance and relativity.
This distinction between our dealings with other imperfect humans and our
dealings with perfect gods is further reflected in the two senses of care (qerapei/a) to
which the dialogue then turns. The rest of the examination of the fourth definition – that
piety is the part of justice concerned with care for the gods – focuses on the meaning of
qerapei/a. Socrates and Euthyphro conclude that this is not the same as the care of
horses, dogs or cattle, all cases where the care aims at the good or the benefit of the
recipient of the care. These beings require the help of someone who knows how the
object is to be improved upon or perfected, so that it can attain its proper end from which
it is at present separated.30
Unlike the care of animals inferior to the caretaker, care for
the gods does not involve benefiting or improving the gods (making them better than they
are). Euthyphro proposes the opposite relation of inferiors to their superiors – the care
slaves give to their masters, which Socrates characterizes as u9phretikh/.31 Thus the
original bifurcation of human justice dealing with our qerapei/a of men and piety as
30
Versenyi (1982: 101) writes: “Thus all therapy presupposes that the thing or organism
it is practiced on has not yet attained its ideal state or it has declined from it; in any case it
is in some way deficient in its functioning and falls short of fulfilling its function in the
best possible way.” 31
It is worth noting that Socrates himself refers to his philosophical activity as “service to
the god” in the Apology at 30a6-7, although the term is u9perhsi/an.
25
justice about qerapei/a of gods has been further refined: the former is care appropriate to
imperfect beings which require help to attain their perfection or true end, the latter is care
(understood as service or u9phretikh/) for beings that already possess their perfection or
ideal end. Concerning the latter, Socrates brings out that every master served by a slave
has a certain function or work they seek to accomplish, and the slave’s service
contributes to the completion of that aim. He asks “to the achievement of what work”
(ei0v ti/nov e1rgou a0pergasi/an) does the servant contribute in the case of the doctor, the
shipbuilder, the house builder – clearly it is health, a ship, a house – the goal towards
which the master’s activity is striving.
Socrates then turns to a question that I believe is one of the most important in the
whole dialogue,32
one which Socrates ironically tells Euthyphro he should be able to
answer because his knowledge of divine things is the best of all men. Socrates’ phrasing
here is important to note at every point: he wants to know the all-good work (to\
pa/gkalon e1rgon) the gods complete, and to\ kefa/laion of their activity. to\ kefa/laion
(repeated 4 times)33
is usually adequately translated as “the sum of” or “the main point
of”. But besides summary, to\ kefa/laion means head, crown, summit.
The passage is full of dramatic tension, with Euthyphro again and again putting
off answering the question. When he finally does answer he deliberately avoids
32
Here I am recovering and elaborating a view that was prevalent in 19th
century
interpretations of Euthyphro, and which has been dismissed (unjustly, I think) by more
recent interpreters like Versenyi (1982: 106-111) and Allen (1970: 6). For a history of
these accounts which see this passage as the key to the positive implicit content of the
inquiry into piety, see Rabinowitz’s (1958: 113 ff.) brief survey of these interpretations. I
agree with Rabinowitz who writes: “It is inconceivable to me that Plato would have
Socrates speak and act so, had he not intended his readers to understand that the vital
point in the dialogue had been reached” (1958: 115). 33
The importance of the iteration is noted by Rabinowitz, (1958: 110).
26
identifying the ultimate goal towards which divine activity is directed. Instead he offers
the fifth and last definition of the dialogue, that piety is a knowledge of how to please the
gods in prayer and sacrifice. Socrates’ disappointed reply is remarkable in its
implications:
You could tell me in far fewer words, if you were willing, the sum (to\
kefa/laion) of what I asked, Euthyphro, but you were not keen to teach
me, that is clear. You were on the point of doing so, but you turned away.
If you had given that answer, I should now have acquired from you
sufficient knowledge of the nature of piety. (14b8-c3)
If Socrates’ response is to be taken seriously, an adequate answer to this question would
yield the definition of piety. If we are to understand the gods at this point in the dialogue
as the forms or universal causes, in the context of this fourth definition which treats the
hierarchical relation of forms from more particular to more general, what is the crown or
summit of this hierarchy? What is it that all the gods, understood as forms, strive
towards? Having in the previous section on justice and piety introduced the notion of
hierarchically related comprehensiveness with higher forms containing the lower within
themselves, here Socrates seeks what is the highest and most comprehensive form of all.
It seems to me that Plato is pointing towards the comprehensive cause of all the forms,
the idea of the good34
to which all ideas are ordered and in which they are all reconciled
34
Against interpretations which suggest the e1rgon under discussion might be the good,
Rabinowitz (1958: 115-16) objects: “What does surprise one...is to find that they all
manage, in one way or another, to import the Republic’s idea of good into it, some seeing
this concept in the pa&gkalon e1rgon of the gods, some equating it with the gods
themselves, others, making the gods and their e1rgon the subjective-objective content of
27
in an ultimate unity. It seems reasonable to believe that Plato gestures towards this
unspoken culmination of the dialogue by introducing this whole section with the poetic
fragment on not speaking the name of Zeus, who is the origin of all things.35
An
understanding of this divine principle and of how to relate to it would yield the nature of
piety. It is to this question of how one should relate to this perfectly good, self-sufficient
principle that the fifth definition turns.36
the idea of good...no definite sign ore clue can be found within the dialogue to indicate
Plato intends qeoi/ or e1rgon tw~n qew~n to be identified with the idea of the good.” But
now that we have shown how the gods are the forms, and that the discussion occurs in
the section which establishes a hierarchy of forms based in degrees of comprehensiveness
– what the kefa&laion of these takes on a new meaning, lending support to the earlier
suggestions of Bonitz and Heidel, rejected by Rabinowitz, that the Good is the implied
answer to the question. 35
The passage in question ends with a disputed section of text: “nu=n de\ a)na&gkh ga&r to_n e0rw~nta tw|~ e0rwme/nw| a0kolouqei=n o3ph| a!n e0kei=nov u9pa&gh|…” (14c3-4). to_n e0rw~nta tw|~ e0rwme/nw| (it is necessary for the lover to pursue the beloved) has often been
emended to to_n e0rwtw~nta tw|~ e0rwtwme/nw| (it is necessary for the questioner to follow
the answerer….) On the interpretation of the passage I am offering, it is the beloved that
the lover must follow, since here one pursues the ultimate object of love (the Good)
against all adversity, but one does so by pursuing the answerer of dialectical questioning.
Thus the original reading includes the sense of the emendation without unnecessarily
limiting it. On the text in question, see Allen (1970: 57 fn.1) and Emlyn-Jones (2007:
92). 36
Rabinowitz’s excellent article makes the claim, against those views close to his own
that Plato is here pointing to the Good, that he is in fact pointing to Nous, or thought as
the apprehension of the ideas, as the e1rgon of the gods. He points mainly to later
Platonic dialogues to suggest that for Plato, Nous is intermediary between forms and
phenomena. This is a huge question which would involve looking to the Phaedo to
consider the relation between Nous as first principle there and the Good as first principle
in Republic. It is noteworthy that in Phaedo, what it means for Nous to be the principle
of all things is that “the directing Mind would direct everything and arrange each thing in
the way that was best. If then one wished to know the cause of each thing, why it comes
to be or perished or exists, one had to find what was the best way for it to be, or to be
acted upon, or to act. One these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about
this and other things, what is best….Once he had given the best for each as the cause for
each and the general cause for all, I thought he would go on to explain the common good
for all” (Phaedo 97c-98b). It is not clear from this passage whether nous is identical to
this common good, or responsible for ordering all things to this good.
28
Before moving to the fifth and final definition, there is one further consequence of
this reading of the dialogue worth noting. Recall that at the outset of the first definition,
Euthyphro frames piety as imitating the actions of Zeus as the god who is most good and
most just. I argued that Euthyphro’s character in the dialogue serves as an imitation of
the notion of the highest divinity to which he adheres: voluntarist deities who control
human affairs without any mediating rational causes. On this view, there are nothing but
particulars on the one hand and gods on the other – particulars are what they are because
the gods perceive or will them to be that way, without any reason independent of their
own perception and will. Euthyphro conceives divine causes as principles that are by
nature inscrutable and unpredictable. They are anything but self-manifesting principles
accessible to human thought. These gods are self-concealing, sharing with humans
neither their own natures nor the reasons behind their actions. One might think here of
the characterization of gods as jealous rejected in Timaeus: “he was good, and one who is
good can never become jealous of anything. And so, being free of jealousy, he wanted
everything to become as much like him as possible.”37
Aristotle38
takes up this criticism
of the god as jealous, and, importantly for our purposes, associates the flawed conception
of the jealous god with the poetic tradition, showing how it makes philosophy impossible.
Based on the incompatibility of jealousy and divine goodness, Aristotle denies the
consequence of this jealousy for the possibility of philosophy – jealous divinity would
not be self-revealing or self-manifesting of its own nature due to its perfect goodness, and
so the quest for knowledge of these highest principles would be futile. Because it cannot
37
Timaeus 29e. See also Phaedrus 247a: “Inside heaven are many wonderful places from
which to look and many aisles which the blessed gods take up and back, each seeing to
his own work, since jealousy has no place in the gods’ chorus.” 38
Aristotle, Metaphysics I.2, 982b29-983a11.
29
be jealous, the highest must of its very nature make itself manifest to us, and allow us to
become like it by coming to know it. Euthyphro’s attitude towards other human beings
perfectly models the conception of the divine as self-concealing and jealous of
maintaining its wholly unique goodness. He, alone among men, must have knowledge of
the gods and of the nature of piety, since, as he says, “I should be of no use, Socrates, and
Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have accurate
knowledge of all such things.” (4e-5a)39
In fact, it is the private guarding of this secret
knowledge of the divine, this refusal to teach and to make others like himself, that makes
Euthyphro so unremarkable and for the most part anonymous40
to the Athenian populace.
A conception of the divine which is opposed to making others as like it as possible,
reflected in the actions of a prophet like Euthyphro who does not try to make anyone like
himself, presents no real threat to the polis. When Euthyphro complains, despite his
apparently infallible41
record of prophecy, that people jealously laugh at him, and
consider him crazy, Socrates answers:
My dear Euthyphro, to be laughed at does not matter perhaps, for the Athenians do
not mind anyone they think clever, as long as he does not teach his own wisdom,
but if they think he makes other like himself they get angry, whether through envy,
as you say, or for some other reason.(3c-d)
39
See also 6b-c, where Euthyphro claims to know not only what he has already said
about the gods, “but even more surprising things, of which the majority has no
knowledge…I will, if you wish, relate many other things about the gods which I know
will amaze you.” 40
Like Meletus (see 2b), Euthyphro is characterized by Socrates as unknown: “I know
that other people as well as Meletus do not seem to notice you, whereas he sees me so
sharply and clearly that he indicts me for ungodliness.” (5c) 41
From the prophetic point of view, infallibility is required, since the only proof or
justification given for his prophecies is their predictive success. Nothing is explained or
taught.
30
In the Timaeus passage, it is argued that the best divinity would not begrudge that which
it causes to be as like it as possible. Euthyphro desires to be absolutely unique in his
possession of divine knowledge, distinct from the rest of us who have no immediate
access to the divine without Euthyphro’s prophetic mediation, and this desire for
uniqueness flows from his emulation of this jealous picture of divinity. This puts him in
direct contrast with Socrates’ politically dangerous desire to make himself and others as
god-like as possible through philosophical scrutiny.
Opposed to this conception of divinity as jealous is the Socratic conception of the
highest god, the Good determining itself through a hierarchy of universal causal essences
in principle knowable to human beings, which can even lead back to knowledge of it and
emulation of it in actions. Just as the jealous Zeus provides the model for Euthyphro’s
constant concealing of his supposed knowledge,42
the highest principle characterized as a
self-diffusing source provides the model for the character of Socrates throughout the
dialogue. Socrates characterizes himself in opposition to Euthyphro in the following
terms:
Perhaps you seem to make yourself but rarely available, and not be willing
to teach your own wisdom, but I’m afraid that my liking for people
(filanqrwpi/av) makes them think that I pour out (e0kkexume/nwv) to
anybody anything I have to say, not only without charging a fee but even
glad to reward anyone who is willing to listen.(3d5-9)
In contrast to the self-concealing stance of Euthyphro, Socrates is a spontaneously
overflowing being like the sun – he indiscriminately pours out whatever he knows to
42
The dialogue ends with Socrates imploring Euthyphro not to conceal (a)pokru/ptein)
from him what he knows about the essence of piety and impiety.
31
anyone, as long as they have a willingness to receive what he is saying. Socrates is here
imitating the self-revealing productivity of the Good diffusing itself into ideal and
sensible reality, allowing itself to be mediated to human understanding, if people only
seek to know the true nature of reality. One can, of course, ignore these truths and live
the unexamined life of mere opinion, but the possibility of knowing is in principle
available to all humans.
It is with this conception of divinity in mind – universal causal essences ordered
hierarchically towards the Good itself - that Socrates discloses the problems with
Euthyphro’s fifth and final definition.43
Fifth Definition
Having disappointed Socrates with his unwillingness or inability to disclose the crowning
result of all divine activity, the dialogue closes with what can seem like a somewhat
anticlimactic discussion of a fifth definition proposed by Euthyphro. If the fourth
definition is about the hierarchical order of divine forms or essences of things as
contained by the highest of these causes, the Good itself, the fifth definition serves to
clarify what is the pious human attitude towards this novel concept of divine being as a
principle which is as good as could be, the source of every single other good thing, a
wholly self-sufficient end in itself.44
Almost as a divisionary tactic, Euthyphro proposes
43
The Good itself makes an implicit appearance in other similarly early Socratic
dialogues – the first friend argument of the Lysis (219c-220b), or the question of a
knower than knows itself immediately without an object other than itself from Charmides
(168e-169c), for example. 44
As opposed to the earlier discussion of the divine causal essences in definitions 2-3,
with the fourth definition, the examination already moves, in the word of Steven Burns,
to a consideration of piety “as a virtue of persons.” See Burns (1985: 320) fn.10.
32
to Socrates that “if a man knows how to say and do what is pleasing to the gods at prayer
and sacrifice, those are pious actions such as preserve both private houses and public
affairs of state” (14b2-5). Socrates summarizes the definition of piety as “a knowledge of
how to sacrifice and pray,” with sacrifice defined as “giving to” and prayer defined as
“begging from” the gods. While the first definitions seek to determine piety as an
activity of the gods (# 2-3), or as a relation between divine forms (# 4), this last
formulation, expanding the notion of qerapei/a from the fourth definition, defines piety
in terms of human attitudes and activities in relation to the gods. Thus the dialogue
culminates with a reflection on what traits and actions characterize the pious person.45
This definition, framed as a “trading skill (e0mporikh/)”,46
is corrected relative to
the Platonic-Socratic conception of divinity as the Good and the forms that has been
disclosed by the argument to this point. On the one hand there is nothing that needs to be
begged from the gods (now understood as the Good and the forms), for, as Socrates says,
“What [the gods] give us is obvious to all. There is no good that we do not receive from
them” (14e11-15a2). The Good produces being and intelligibility not because it is asked,
but because it is its nature to do so. But how can such gods be benefited when they are as
good as they can be – they cannot be improved and they lack nothing. Socrates asks: “do
45
In the light of this claim of piety’s preserving effect in human life, note that the entire
dialogue is framed around two possible pollutions, one in the oikos (Euthyphro’s
prosecution of his father) and one in the polis (Meletus’ prosecution of Socrates). 46
Notice that when Socrates asks whether this definition be called a form of trading skill,
Euthyphro answers “if naming it in this way is more pleasant (h3dion) to you.” (14e8) For
Euthyphro, as from the beginning of the dialogue, this criterion of something being pious
is being perceived as good by the gods and consequently loved by them – here he imitates
this criterion in discussion with Socrates. Socrates’ response is instructive – “nothing is
more pleasant to me, unless it happens to be true.” (14e9) Here Socrates imitates his own
conception of divinity – something is not true because it is loved, but is loved because it
is true. And the love is an affection of the agent in relation to an object, not affecting the
intrinsic nature of that beloved object.
33
we have such an advantage over them in the trade that we receive all our blessings from
them and they receive nothing from us?”(15a3-4)
What seems preposterous about characterizing our relations with the gods as a
business deal is the suggestion that the relation between human and divine is one of
equality, a symmetrical reciprocity. But could complete and radical asymmetry be true,
where the gods (the Good and the forms) give us everything and we give them nothing in
return? (“Or do we have such an advantage over them in the trade that we receive all our
blessings from them and they receive nothing from us?” [15a2-4]) The gods are
responsible for every good thing, and we have nothing we could ever give back even
remotely commensurate. This, it seems, is in fact the character of the Platonic relation to
divinity – the Good is the source of all being and intelligibility – but does not require any
repayment for the generosity of its self-diffusion. This all-giving nature of divinity with
no need or expectation of repayment is reflected in the very character of Socrates who
uses this highest god as the model for his own activity – recall his statement: “I pour out
to anybody anything I have to say, not only without charging a fee but even glad to
reward anyone who is willing to listen.”
What then is the proper human attitude towards the divine if the gods need
nothing from us and no gift to them could be commensurate with the goods we receive
from them? What are we meant to make of the gifts to the gods suggested by Euthyphro –
that what we give back to the gods in return for what we receive is honour, reverence,
and gratitude? Socrates takes the last of these, xa&riv (thanks or gratitude), and through a
slight verbal twist, brings out how Euthyphro’s conception of divinity has not been in the
least transformed through the course of the argument. He asks Euthyphro if he means
34
that the pious is pleasing (kexarisme/non) to the gods - if so, it is also beneficial
(w0fe/limon) to them, and dear (fi/lon) to them. The question of usefulness or benefit to
the god has been made moot by the implicit result of the fourth definition – the end
towards which all divine activity is directed is goodness or the good itself, a completely
self-sufficient end.
Of course Euthyphro’s original answers – honour, reverence, gratitude - were not
about the way the gods relate, react, or feel towards our actions – all three were ways we
humans should be disposed towards these divine beings. These three ways of relating to
the divine can be true, so long as they are not taken to constitute observations about the
nature of the gods as needing, desiring, being pleased by these attitudes. These gods
have been through the course of the argument radically de-personalized. But that a pious
human attitude demands some form of honour, reverence, and gratitude for what the
Good and the divine essences of things provide to us does not entail any re-
personalization of these principles. Socrates, by making this shift from xa/riv to
xari/zesqai toi=v qeoi=v, demonstrates how Euthyphro has remained unaffected by the
argument, but not that there is not something plausible and important about the way a
pious human being must show honour, reverence and thanks to the highest philosophical
principles.
Conclusion
After the failure of the final definition, in his last words to Euthyphro, Socrates
exemplifies the picture of what true piety might look like. The entire second-last
paragraph is worth citing to disclose the contours of this novel, yet deeply traditional
piety:
35
So we must investigate again from the beginning what piety is, as I shall
not willingly give up before I learn this. Do not think me unworthy, but
concentrate your attention and tell the truth. For you know it, if any man
does, and I must not let you go, like Proteus, before you tell me. If you
had no clear knowledge of piety and impiety you would never have
ventured to prosecute your old father for murder on behalf of a servant.
For fear of the gods you would have been afraid to take the risk lest you
should not be acting rightly, and would have been ashamed before men,
but now I know well that you believe you have clear knowledge of piety
and impiety. So tell me, my good Euthyphro, and do not hide what you
think it is. (15c11-e2)
The first point to take from this is the demand that one inquire into and keep
constantly before one’s mind true objects of thought, the objects sought in the dialectical
quest for definitions. As Socrates said at the beginning of the dialogue, “in the past too I
considered knowledge about the divine (ta_ qei=a) to be most important.” (5a5-6) The
gods, understood as the good and the forms, the divine essences which are the causes of
all things and the principles of understanding them, must be revered and honoured as
objects of the highest concern. This attitude of reverence towards these divine truths
beyond human opinion and convention is evoked in the idea of turning one’s mind to
these objects – prose/xein to_n nou=n – evoked at 14d4 and 15d1-2, an expression evoking
attentive devotion to the object. This devotion requires a kind of philosophical courage,
not to willingly give up in the face of either failure, or opposition from the perspective of
merely human opinions (Socrates will not willingly flinch [e9kw_n…ou0k a)podeilia&sw]
36
until he understands the form). That one’s chief and primary concern should be these
objects, and that they should be sought out and known before acting, is what Socrates
means by “fear of the gods.”
The second point to take from Socrates’ statement above is that the proper
relation to others follows naturally upon this primary obligation to the gods, to the forms
as divine laws. Not to think someone unworthy (a)timia&sh|v) involves focusing on the
truth and adequacy of what they say, and the rightness of their actions. Honouring
another human being properly means not letting their words and deeds go by
unexamined, prosecuting by holding them to the standard of truth and rightness in the
forms as divine law, by not letting them escape like the formless Proteus into the unstable
world of merely human opinions, relativity and inattention to the divine. This should be
seen as a form of purification, expelling the pollution and impurity of any false opinions
and evil acts opposed to divine law.47
This qerapei/a of men can happen only by
recognizing the difference between the service owed to imperfect, defective beings
always on their way to or away from their true good, and the service to perfect gods
beyond any possible defect. Insofar as the primacy of our service to the divine is
neglected, proper service to other humans is rendered impossible. This devotion to one’s
interlocutor is evidenced throughout the dialogues by Socrates, who, as a lover, must
pursue his beloved (14c3-5): “because I am so desirous of your wisdom, and I
concentrate my mind on it, so that no word of yours may fall to the ground” (14d4-5).
47
See Versenyi, (1982: 17): “The sole function of Socratic thought is therapy. A therapy
that is to begin with a therapy of thinking: a clearing up of confusion and eliminating of
contradictions within our various, so often internally incoherent, beliefs and opinions; a
conceptual clarification of the terms we use so thoughtlessly in everyday discourse. Its
aim is a type of catharsis: a purification of concepts that cleanses our ignorance about the
subjects under discussion.”
37
The total attentiveness to the divine is reflected in a total attentiveness to other human
beings.
In his prosecution of his father, Euthyphro accused his father of insufficient care
for another human being due to excessive scrupulousness to religious obligation:
[Euthyphro’s pela&thv] killed one of our household slaves in drunken anger, so my
father bound him hand and foot and threw him in a ditch, then sent a man here to
inquire from the priest what should be done. During that time he gave no thought
or care (w)ligw&rei te kai\ h0me/lei) to the bound man, as being a killer, and it was
no matter if he died, which he did. (4c5-d3)
For Euthyphro, because his father, governed by a very traditional piety, neutralizes the
wrongdoer and waits for the will of the gods to be made manifest though the instruction
of the e0chghth/v, he neglected the human needs of Euthyphro’s dependent. In the same
way, Socrates neutralizes his rash interlocutors while devoting his attention to the divine
measures of human actions, until these divine laws are made manifest in human thinking,
i.e. until a true definition adequate to the one form or causal essence governing sensible
particulars is grasped in thought. While Euthyphro opposes this unconditional duty to the
divine to the care for human beings, Socrates shows that genuine care for humans arises
as a by-product of one’s unconditional devotion to the knowledge of divine forms under
the form of the Good.
This care for humans exhibited by Socrates should be contrasted with Euthyphro's
behaviour. Rather than show his own ignorance by pursuing Socrates’ line of
questioning, Euthyphro turns away (a)potre/pein) from investigation into the form of
piety (14c1-3), to be compared with Socrates holding his mind towards these objects and
38
the words that strive to express them. While Socrates hangs on every single word spoken
by Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s voluntarism seems to extend even to the meaning of words.
When Socrates asks him if by knowledge of sacrificing and praying he means a trading
skill (e0mporikh/), Euthyphro replies affirmatively, “ei0 ou3twv h93dio&n soi o0noma&zein – if
so naming it is more pleasing to you” (14e8). For Socrates, what is pleasing to others is
not the measure of the adequacy of words, but rather the truth itself: “Nothing is more
pleasing to me, unless it happens to be true” (14e9). One cannot simply treat words
carelessly, but must treat them as vehicles for the disclosure of divine truths. Finally, at
the very end of the dialogue, Euthyphro is in a hurry to go away, leaving Socrates without
the knowledge of piety or of divine things that he would require to defend himself from
execution in his trial. To preserve his reputation and his appearance of wisdom,
Euthyphro is willing to neglect working with Socrates to improve him and save him.48
In
other words, by ignoring his primary duty to the true divinities, he is neglectful of his
secondary obligations to other human beings.
Given this Socratic re-grounding of our obligations to other human beings in our
prior obligation to the divine, the dialogue’s conclusion also offers some explanation for
the more conservative relation to the laws and ancestral customs exhibited by Socrates in
the Crito, for example. In the absence of clear and accurate knowledge of the divine
forms through definition, one should not lightly overturn or compromise ancestral
48
Socrates ends the dialogue by claiming he has been thrown down from his high hopes
and abandoned by Euthyphro. The word for throwing down – katabalw&n – is the same
word used for Euthyphro’s father throwing the dependent down into the ditch and
abandoning him. Thus Euthyphro is guilty of the same fatal neglect for which he
prosecutes his own father. [reference omitted for blind review]
39
authority.49
Without this knowledge, we can and must use the authority of law and
ancestral beliefs as the grounds for our action.50
Until the time that the forms of the
virtues which should form the basis of good human action are disclosed in definitions,
dialectical investigation respects the authority of tradition, using it as a ground for action
in the absence of clear and accurate knowledge. This ensures that one does not act
according to a merely private measure, to “rashly improvise (au0tosxedia/zein) and make
innovations (kainotomei=n)” about divine things (16a2).51
Socrates clearly expresses
horror that one could neglect the reverence due to one’s father as the source of one’s
natural and spiritual being (see 4a-b). It is shocking to him that the authority of the
paternal source and ruling principle of the oikos, along with the authority of the
customary views of the polis which the murder prosecution of a father overturns, could
be undermined without clear and accurate knowledge of the grounds for this anti-
conventional act. Just as he thinks that the father is due special reverence in the oikos,
the laws and customs are also due a special reverence. It is for this reason that, rather
than dialectically investigating the older men and their traditional understandings,
Socratic investigation focuses on the youth and their novel views. He endorses Meletus’
focus on the corruption of the youth before turning his attention their elders.
In principle, Socrates agrees with the way Meletus is proceeding, if only he were
serious about his charges. For the charges of corruption emerge out of a concern or care
49
See 4e4-9: “you think that your knowledge of the divine, and of piety and impiety, is
so accurate that, when those things happened as you say, you have no fear of having
acted impiously in bringing your father to trial.” 50
That these have survived in being handed down to us suggests perhaps that the source
of their stability could be conformity with the divine will – or compatibility with the
Good and the forms beyond human convention. 51
See also 5a7-8, where Socrates says he is accused of improvising and innovating about