The first definition of piety that Euthyphro provides is a definition by example, or an ostensive definition. He says that what is pious is what he is doing (prosecuting the wrongdoer) (5d). Socrates rejects this definition because it is the wrong kind of definition. Socrates wants a conceptual definition. A conceptual definition of a term provides a set of criteria that when met, the term is applied correctly. In other words, a conceptual definition gives a set of conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to use the word accurately. Contrast these two definitions for 'governor':
Ostensive definition: Jerry Brown is the governor.
Conceptual definition: The governor is the top political leader in the state in the executive branch of government.
In the first case, an example is provided, but we don't have any general knowledge or information about what a governor is. In the second case, we get some abstract and general information about what a governor is.
Socrates is concerned not just with finding examples of piety; he also wants to identify the abstract form, or the general conditions that define piety.
Monday, September 30, 2013
The Socratic Method, The Socratic Question
The
Socratic question is the question about who exactly Socrates was in real
life. He did not write anything down himself. All we know about him comes from
the writings of others. Some of these sources are very dubious. Plato wrote
the most complete record of Socrates's life, but we have no way of knowing how
far he stretched the truth. One thing is known for sure; Socrates was not a
pretty man. In spite of this fact, he was quite popular with young men. The Socratic method is a method of questioning. Socrates does not lecture or give speeches. Rather, he asks questions of his pupils. He asks very pointed and critical questions, sometimes even leading his interlocutor into a philosophical trap! Today we use this term to refer to any kind of questioning that a teacher does in order to encourage a student to give the answers to questions on his or her own. Sometimes it still means leading students into a trap by asking leading questions. Don't worry, I won't try to trap you! But it's not a bad rule in general to be wary of leading questions when you're dealing with philosophers.
What is Pious?
The main question that arises in Euthyphro is about what is pious. In
everyday language, being pious (having the quality of piety) means being
reverent and respectful to god(s). Euthyphro equates piety with justice. In
other words, he thinks that what is just is decided by what the gods love. What
the gods love is the first conceptual definition of pious that Euthyphro offers.
Before offering this conceptual definition, he attempted to provide an
ostensive definition of pious; this kind of definition is also called a
definition by example. In other words, Euthyphro tried to define the word by
providing an example of something that is pious.
Socrates dismantles the first conceptual definition offered by Euthyphro (that what is pious is what the gods love) by pointing out that the gods disagree often and that some things will be both god-loved and god-hated. But to say that a thing is both god-loved and god-hated is a contradiction! Clearly this definition is unacceptable.
Euthyphro then amends his definition. He says that what is pious is whatever all gods love. At this point, Socrates asks if being loved is like being seen, carried or led. Euthyphro agrees that they are all alike because something is only loved, seen, carried or led if there is someone or something else that is doing the loving, seeing, carrying or leading. Then Socrates asks if pious things are pious because they are loved or because they are pious. They agree that pious things are pious simply because they are pious. Pious people and pious things do not need to have any other person or thing acting upon them in order for them to be pious. Yet now we have a circular definition. Euthyphro first says that pious things are things that are loved by all gods. Second, he says that the gods love pious things because they are pious. He attempts to define piety in terms of what the gods love. Then he says that the gods love it because it is pious. The definition refers only to itself. It creates a circle of reasoning. It is the same thing as saying, "I like coffee because it's good and it's good because I like it." or "That is morally wrong because it's morally wrong". In technical terms, circular reasoning makes the mistake of assuming the truth of the conclusion as a premise for an argument. If we are to define piety in terms of what the gods love but also assume that the gods love it because it is pious, then we assume the truth of our claim when trying to explain it.
Socrates dismantles the first conceptual definition offered by Euthyphro (that what is pious is what the gods love) by pointing out that the gods disagree often and that some things will be both god-loved and god-hated. But to say that a thing is both god-loved and god-hated is a contradiction! Clearly this definition is unacceptable.
Euthyphro then amends his definition. He says that what is pious is whatever all gods love. At this point, Socrates asks if being loved is like being seen, carried or led. Euthyphro agrees that they are all alike because something is only loved, seen, carried or led if there is someone or something else that is doing the loving, seeing, carrying or leading. Then Socrates asks if pious things are pious because they are loved or because they are pious. They agree that pious things are pious simply because they are pious. Pious people and pious things do not need to have any other person or thing acting upon them in order for them to be pious. Yet now we have a circular definition. Euthyphro first says that pious things are things that are loved by all gods. Second, he says that the gods love pious things because they are pious. He attempts to define piety in terms of what the gods love. Then he says that the gods love it because it is pious. The definition refers only to itself. It creates a circle of reasoning. It is the same thing as saying, "I like coffee because it's good and it's good because I like it." or "That is morally wrong because it's morally wrong". In technical terms, circular reasoning makes the mistake of assuming the truth of the conclusion as a premise for an argument. If we are to define piety in terms of what the gods love but also assume that the gods love it because it is pious, then we assume the truth of our claim when trying to explain it.
Philosophy as Argumentation and Basic Logic
Hello and welcome to Phil4: Intro to Ethics! In an ethics class, we ask questions about what is good, what is moral, how we should live and to whom we have moral obligations and why. In a philosophy class, we try to answer these questions with arguments. Remember that in philosophy, an argument does not just mean conflict or simple contradiction. Here is the Monty Python sketch we watched today about arguments.
Here is another link to a post about basic logic.
Here is another link to a post about basic logic.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Inspiration from Maru
Need inspiration to finish your final? Watch this video of Maru, my favorite internet cat! See how Maru never gives up! No matter how small the box, Maru will try to get inside!
Dessa on the Absurdity of Life
Here is a track from Dessa, a member of the Doomtree collective. This song laments the absurdity of human existence.
Luck: Ancients vs Moderns, Day 2
Williams suggests that most ancient Greeks did not consider the question of whether slavery was just because they took it for granted that slavery was necessary for their way of life. Aristotle made an even stronger claim, which is that slavery is just because some people are naturally born slaves. Some people have a necessary identity as a slave. Not only do modern thinkers reject the notion that people are born with necessary identities; we also reject the idea that considerations of justice cannot be replaced by luck, fortune or fate. We cannot let luck settle questions of justice. In modern society, we set up social institutions like homeless shelters, job training and health care; these institutions help us to mitigate the effects of bad luck. The social or economic necessity that might make a person born poor remain poor, need not be coercive. This means that no individual person's luck will be worse than others'.
Williams thinks that even though we attempt to control luck, we can never be completely successful. Life is tragic and incomprehensible. Ancient Greek poets were aware of this fact about human life. Philosophers are guilty of trying to show that there is a rational order to the universe. Williams thinks that the philosophers are wrong and the poets are right. As evidence, it is a common occurrence in tropical places for people to be killed by falling coconuts. This is a seemingly absurd event. There is no rational explanation for such a death! We cannot make sense of it in terms of human purposes and human interests. There is no predictable pattern or "style" to supernatural necessity.
Supernatural necessity can be contrasts with human necessity. Human necessity is when one person forces another to do something, such as in the case of slavery. Supernatural necessity is beyond or behind human necessity. For example, a supernatural force may put a person in a situation to choose between two things that they care about. For example, if a man stranded on a desert island found a rescue boat which can only hold one other person. If this man has two children, he will have to choose one. One interpretation of this situation is to say that such a person is forced to make a choice but that the choice is still his. The man is not forced to choose a particular way. Is accepting one's fate heroic or is it weak?
When a person in an ancient Greek tragedy accepts her fate, is this heroic or is it caving in to fate? Is a person only accepting fate or collapsing in the face of fate? It is true that luck may be against you, but you never know in what way exactly. Once your fate has been determined, it is not only the case that things cannot be otherwise, but things will not be otherwise. It may be unclear why this is the case. We may not know how or why things must have been the way they are. It's also not relevant because the gods are in control. While human affairs might be explainable and understandable, this is not the case when the gods are in charge. We cannot apply rational explanations to the actions of the gods.
Even if our lives are not controlled by capricious gods, Williams thinks that this does not yet mean that we are free. The real obstacle to freedom is not a supernatural god. The real obstacles to freedom are psychological, social and political causes. For example, your parents or superiors at work can control you just as much as the gods could. In another example, the influence of your family life and education can control you just as much as fate. Even if our choices are not restricted, we can still be made unfree if we are persuaded by other people or forced to do things by other people. In a more extreme case, people can be brainwashed and thus lose their freedom. In many cases, not only are subjects of tyrannical governments made unfree; the tyrants themselves become controlled by their own brainwashing and rhetoric.
Kant and Plato object that people are free to determine themselves with reason when they are freed from outside influences. Aristotle thought that although we are all embedded in a society, we can still shape and guide ourselves with rationality. Hegel thought that our individual selves must be in harmony with social life. But the poets suggest that these ideas about self-control are illusions. The poets think that our lives are necessarily unharmonious. They think that we cannot make perfect sense of the world with human reason. The world is only partially intelligible.
Williams thinks that even though we attempt to control luck, we can never be completely successful. Life is tragic and incomprehensible. Ancient Greek poets were aware of this fact about human life. Philosophers are guilty of trying to show that there is a rational order to the universe. Williams thinks that the philosophers are wrong and the poets are right. As evidence, it is a common occurrence in tropical places for people to be killed by falling coconuts. This is a seemingly absurd event. There is no rational explanation for such a death! We cannot make sense of it in terms of human purposes and human interests. There is no predictable pattern or "style" to supernatural necessity.
Supernatural necessity can be contrasts with human necessity. Human necessity is when one person forces another to do something, such as in the case of slavery. Supernatural necessity is beyond or behind human necessity. For example, a supernatural force may put a person in a situation to choose between two things that they care about. For example, if a man stranded on a desert island found a rescue boat which can only hold one other person. If this man has two children, he will have to choose one. One interpretation of this situation is to say that such a person is forced to make a choice but that the choice is still his. The man is not forced to choose a particular way. Is accepting one's fate heroic or is it weak?
When a person in an ancient Greek tragedy accepts her fate, is this heroic or is it caving in to fate? Is a person only accepting fate or collapsing in the face of fate? It is true that luck may be against you, but you never know in what way exactly. Once your fate has been determined, it is not only the case that things cannot be otherwise, but things will not be otherwise. It may be unclear why this is the case. We may not know how or why things must have been the way they are. It's also not relevant because the gods are in control. While human affairs might be explainable and understandable, this is not the case when the gods are in charge. We cannot apply rational explanations to the actions of the gods.
Even if our lives are not controlled by capricious gods, Williams thinks that this does not yet mean that we are free. The real obstacle to freedom is not a supernatural god. The real obstacles to freedom are psychological, social and political causes. For example, your parents or superiors at work can control you just as much as the gods could. In another example, the influence of your family life and education can control you just as much as fate. Even if our choices are not restricted, we can still be made unfree if we are persuaded by other people or forced to do things by other people. In a more extreme case, people can be brainwashed and thus lose their freedom. In many cases, not only are subjects of tyrannical governments made unfree; the tyrants themselves become controlled by their own brainwashing and rhetoric.
Kant and Plato object that people are free to determine themselves with reason when they are freed from outside influences. Aristotle thought that although we are all embedded in a society, we can still shape and guide ourselves with rationality. Hegel thought that our individual selves must be in harmony with social life. But the poets suggest that these ideas about self-control are illusions. The poets think that our lives are necessarily unharmonious. They think that we cannot make perfect sense of the world with human reason. The world is only partially intelligible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)