Socrates proceeds to analyze the new form of the definition. He shows that
in other cases the act precedes the state; e.g. the act of being carried,
loved, etc. precedes the state of being carried, loved, etc., and therefore
that which is dear to the gods is dear to the gods because it is first
loved of them, not loved of them because it is dear to them. But the pious
or holy is loved by the gods because it is pious or holy, which is
equivalent to saying, that it is loved by them because it is dear to them.
Here then appears to be a contradiction,--Euthyphro has been giving an
attribute or accident of piety only, and not the essence. Euthyphro
acknowledges himself that his explanations seem to walk away or go round in
a circle, like the moving figures of Daedalus, the ancestor of Socrates,
who has communicated his art to his descendants.
Socrates, who is desirous of stimulating the indolent intelligence of
Euthyphro, raises the question in another manner: 'Is all the pious just?'
'Yes.' 'Is all the just pious?' 'No.' 'Then what part of justice is
piety?' Euthyphro replies that piety is that part of justice which
'attends' to the gods, as there is another part of justice which 'attends'
to men. But what is the meaning of 'attending' to the gods? The word
'attending,' when applied to dogs, horses, and men, implies that in some
way they are made better.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25