Euthyphro










Under discussion are three things we might say about a certain deed, and three claims
Euthyphro is committed to.
The three things we might say about a certain deed are:
o a. it is holy
o b. it gets approved of by the gods
o c. it is divinely approved
The distinction between (B) and (C) is that (B) deals with the act of approval on the part of the
gods and (C) deals with the state of the deed as being approved of by the gods.
Socrates' earlier point, about something being approved because it gets approved and not vice
versa, is meant to point out that we would have (C) only because of (B), and not the other way
around.
That is, a deed is in the state of being approved of by the gods because the gods decided to
approve of it.
The reverse, that the gods decide to approve of a deed because it is a deed they approve of, is
nonsensical.
The three claims Euthyphro is committed to are:
o (i) Something gets approved by the gods because it is holy
o (ii) Something is approved of by the gods because it gets approved of by the gods
o (iii) What is holy is what is approved of by the gods
In other words, (i) states that if (A) then (B), (ii) states that if (B) then (C), and (iii) states that (A)
= (C).
The problem is that (i) and (ii) imply that if (A) then (C), not (A) = (C).
If (A) determines (B) and (B) determines (C), then Euthyphro cannot claim that (A) and (C) are
one and the same.
Phaedo





Socrates gives us four reasons to think that the soul is different from the attunement of an
instrument: (1) the soul can exist before the body is made, (2) there are no degrees of soul like
there are degrees of attunement, (3) if the attunement argument were correct, it would imply
that no souls were better or worse than any other souls, and (4) the soul is master of the body.
A teleological explanation will tell us things are the way they are rather than simply explaining
that they are the way they are.
His answer to what provides a teleological explanation for things, the Theory of Forms
Theory of Forms is the theory that there exist as real entities such things as Beauty in itself,
Goodness in itself, and Largeness in itself.
three likely possibilities of what Forms are according to this claim.
o (1) Forms as paradigms: Forms are the perfect instance of whatever they represent. For
instance, the Form of Justice is the paradigm of justice, the one, most perfect instance
of justice in this world. All other things that are just are just only insofar as they
emulate, or are similar to, this Form of Justice.
o (2) Forms as universals: Forms are that which all instances of the Form have in
common. The Form of Justice is that quality which all just people have in common.















According to this interpretation, one participates in the Form of Justice by sharing in
that quality of justice.
o (3) Forms as stuffs: Forms are distributed throughout the world.
The Form of Justice, under this interpretation, is not some separate thing, but is rather the sum
total of all the instances of justice that we might find in the world.
the Theory of Forms is the common ground that everyone shares, and so it can serve as the
starting point for a proof of the immortality of the soul.
Whenever a soul occupies a body, it always brings life with it.
This would suggest that the soul is intimately connected with life, and so cannot admit of its
opposite, death.
Therefore, Socrates concludes, the soul does not die with the body, but simply withdraws from
it, living on, eternal and indestructible.
Plato also asserts here the existence of essential properties. (This idea will bear far more weight
in Aristotle, but it does play an important role in this argument.)
The distinction is drawn between essential properties, properties without which the thing that
has them would be other than it is, and accidental properties, properties that just happen to
hold of a thing, but which it could do without.
Analogously, Plato suggests that life is an essential property of the soul, whereas its existence
within a body is only an accidental property.
So a soul can leave the body and still be a soul, but it cannot be a soul unless it is alive.
The living soul cannot simply be destroyed, but would at the least be replaced by something
else--namely, death.
But since the soul's essential property rules out this possibility as well, it must live on forever.
theme that has run throughout the dialogue is the idea that a philosopher is someone who
prepares himself for death.
Socrates' suggestion in his dying words is that he has been cured of the disease that is life, and
should therefore be thankful to Asclepius.
For as long as we are alive our soul is tempted and distracted by the flesh.
Only through death can our soul achieve that release that "cures" it of these ills.