In plus he himself claimed he was

In this early dialogue from Plato, irony plays a big role in this set because we tend to sarcastically overpraise those who are wrong in order for them to see their own realization of their own errors and also realize they are wrong. Although, it can be difficult to make them realize things, it can be very frustrating to help them see their own mistakes for they are very conservative, take Euthyphro in this essay for example. Euthyphro Plato makes a dialogue with two main characters that are not satisfied with the complex conversation they are having, and because the conversation was so complicated both could not get what they wanted in the first place.The scene was first brought to Socrates, a man who searched for truth and justice in most cases like this one. A greek philosopher who was known for his Socratic methods plus he himself claimed he was ignorant because he had no ideas.  Furthermore,  because of his wise curiosity with slight irony he was taken as being uneducated according to Meletus. Based on the sources found on britannica.com, Meletus was an ancient Athenian Greek from Pithus who had a big role for Socrates’s trial. According to Meletus, Aristotle was provoking impiety. He charged Socrates for several specific purposes: for being atheist, for believing in daimonic activities, and for corrupting the youth by teaching these beliefs to them as well. Euthyphro is then being introduced to the scene when he sees Socrates outside of the court of Athens after being called out for the charges from Meletus. Socrates questions him why he was there and Euthyphro claimed him that he was there to prosecute his own father for murdering his hired servant. He believes it was an unholy actio and his father deserves to get prosecuted because it was a pious thing to do. Socrates (and I feel sure other readers as well) were shocked at the reason and for Socrates’ ironic personality he questions why Euthyphro had done that and compliments him for being so godly and pious. So Socrates questions Euthyphro if he could instruct him to holiness in hopes that it will support him to getting away from his trial against Meletus but really is to help Euthyphro to convince himself not to kill his father and show him his ignorance. Socrates questions, “What is piety” and so Euthyphro gives Socrates a definition to piety. He claims that, “The pious is to do what I am doing now”, which is him prosecuting those he believes are of religious offenders. Socrates disagrees with Euthyphro’s definition because it was not really an accurate universal definition. SO he suggested Euthyphro to give him another definition that all holy deeds shared in common. Euthyphro’s second definition was, “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious”. What he means by that is piety is what is only dear to the gods. But Socrates argues that we have all sorts of different gods, which concludes that it can’t be possible for gods to like the same thing or consider the same thing to be pious when they can not dislike the same thing either. Socrates also sets up a complicated argument to show that they actually cannot be corresponded to one another. What is considered holy gets approved by the gods forit being holy, so what is holy determines what gets approved by the gods, and so what gets approved by the gods determines what is getting approved by the gods. The two definitions is very complex, which makes Socrates irritated that Euthyphro cannot give him a clear definition of what is piety. So Euthyphro tries one last time with a third definition and accepts the correction of Socrates of piety saying, “What all the gods hate is impious, and what they all love is pious”. But this is where the complication comes along again because it questions if is pious that is being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods? Aristotle, being overwhelmed by this definition tells Euthyphro that because God’s love is an effect or quality, it is considered an external conflict of piety. Socrates tells him that he is looking for an internal definition of piety. Euthyphro gives the last shot to finding the right definition of piety and suggested that piety was a form part of justice under the hold of the gods. Socrates then argues that with this definition, it would not conflict with the gods since they have enough power. Due to the massive of overthinking and and correcting of several definitions of piety, Euthyphro finally suggests that, “holiness is a kind of trading with the gods, where we give them sacrifices and they grant our prayers” and then again he also makes piety to what was his second definition, that meant to what is dear to gods. The argument sprung all over again back to the original definition and so Socrates takes control but yet there was no clear answer to leaving Euthyphro embarrassed and rushing to leave. After their argument of defining the word piety and discovering what pious could be and what’s not, Socrates was left with disappointment and dissatisfaction from Euthyphro because of his inconclusiveness ways and not giving an accurate definition to piety. This shows that although in the beginning of the dialogue, Euthyphro was first introduced as a smart ,wise, and holy man, unlike Socrates he was first introduced unholy and impious for his ungodly actions. But yet, the end of the dialogue plot twisted and changed positions. Socrates ended up doing a pious act and Euthyphro ended up being really being an ignorant man who is actually not doing piety actions. According to the text, “..if someone has knowledge of how to say and do things gratifying to the gods by praying and sacrificing, these are the pious things. And such things preserve private families as well as the communities of cities.” This shows that Euthyphro ended up proving himself that he is impious for attacking his own father. Plato was able to introduce several techniques in the dialogue, such as the Elenchus also known as the cross examination. Plato uses this method a lot in his Socratic dialogues. Elenchus is a logical refutation used by Socrates against Euthyphro in order to closely examine and asks questions back and answer their questions in confusion. This can later lead to contradiction. Which is how you win or somewhat get some satisfaction to what you wanted to gain from the opposing person. The best way to succeed is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer’s own point. In this dialogue, Aristotle makes Euthyphro contradict himself with his definitions when it comes to piety. Socrates also uses a method known as the dialectic Socrates considers this an art of discussion. This brings out more specifically on helps get the answer bey questioning and answering and making them claim statements with unclear logical implications. Aristotle was good at using this proving the case that if Euthyphro was right on his definitions then there actually is such thing something that is both pious and impious. This made Euthyphro rethink again and consider it ridiculous. Overall, Socrates was able to compel Euthyphro to reflect on what he had said and to restate what he had once thought he was sure of, pushing him out of his mental ruts and their customary patterns of thought. Socrates also uses irony most of the time during the conversation. His was of using using it is through a dialectic conversation by seeming ignorant for the means of simply attaining more knowledge or validating a point. These Socratic methods helped the dialogue grow several themes that I have discovered throughout the dialogue, such as the universe being fundamentally rational, and irony as a teaching tool.The first theme that I’d like to mention is the universe being fundamentally rational. Both Euthyphro and Socrates have the assumption that the universe is a rational. With that being said they both believe that when they inquire deeply into the nature of piety or God, that there is some for of answer they can be accepted. This answer would be rationally compelling. This proofs that Greeks believe that the universe was not some chaotic random invention or that it was created by some god, but that it was made penetrated to the human mind. Aristotle tries to portray at the end of the dialogue that the only way to link morality and religion is to see that when we do good we are serving the gods good. Earlier in the dialogue Euthyphro says that although what he is doing is some form of impiety it the gods in a way would have done the same thing according to heard traditional stories. However, Socrates argues that those stories attribute immorality to the gods, but that does not mean he does not believe in gods.  With that being said the universe being fundamentally rational was a theme that caught my attention. According to an article, “Socrates still insists that he does not know what piety is, and certainly Euthyphro has not revealed its true nature. The question is an important one, not only for Socrates, but for anyone who is called upon to make decisions relative to moral conduct.” The next theme that I noticed was irony as a teaching tool. The first time I read this dialogue I assumed that Socrates was trying to either humiliate or pick on Euthyphro but I when I reread it again I noticed that in the beginning Aristotle wanted to be taught by Euthyphro as if he was his student because of his is so wise but after a while in the dialogue the admiration turns out plainly ironic. Also, when most people think of irony they would assume it as a type of personal aggression by tearing people down and humiliating like I had said earlier however Socrates use of irony is not to judge Euthyphro but to teach Euthyphro to figure out his actual answer and understanding of piety. This helps Euthyphro feel sure about his answers and not feel hesitant about it. Overall, based on Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro Socrates was searching for a internal definition of piety. Euthyphro was so certain that he knew what was talking about when giving more than one meaning of piety to Socrates but first one definition was “prosecuting the wrongdoer”, but Socrates mentions that the definition is invalid because it wasn’t even a definition but an example. It doesn’t give a clear reason to why pious is pious. Euthyphro’s second definition was what “is pleasing to the gods” and yet Aristotle argues that not all gods agree on the same things being pious. Lastly, Euthyphro’s last definition to piety was “what all the gods love is pious, what all the gods hate is impious”. Aristotle disagrees with this last definition by pointing out Euthyphro’s dilemma. Socrates mentions that those who are in liking should follow something, so in this case, pious the action of it is prior to being liked not that it is liked because it is pious. Piety should come before it being like in logical and temporal terms. With that being said, Euthyphro has said it completely the other way around making his definitions completely wrong. According to a source, “Without having yet realizing that it makes his definition circular, Euthyphro at this point agrees that the gods like an action because it is pious. Socrates argues that the unanimous approval of the gods is merely an attribute of piety; it is not part of its defining characteristics. It does not define the essence of piety, what piety is in itself; it does not give the idea of piety, so it cannot be a universal definition of ‘piety.'”Based on this dialogue I come to the conclusion myself of being unable to recognize what piety is. Both Socrates and Euthyphro had many opinions on piety as I did myself. I believe my definition of piety of being holy with some flaws but that are still willingly to improve mistakes that are considered impious. But many would argue with my point of view. I believe I can view myself more of a Euthyphro because I tend to think I am wise but when I feel humiliated I tend to just end the conversation and leave, which is why I believe Euthyphro left because he was so embarrassed and he took it personal but really Aristotle was trying to teach him. Maybe it is because Euthyphro thought he was teaching Aristotle so he took it in offense. Who really knows why, if Euthyphro had his mind changed for prosecuting his father after the discussion with Aristotle. Or who knows if Aristotle was really just humiliating him for all the absurd definition he gave him.