Fluent Essays

Question 1: ⁞ Instructions: After reading all of Chapter 1, please select ONE of the following primary source readings: “What is the Socrative Method?” by Christopher Phillips (starting on page 14) -or- “The Euthphro” by Plato (starting on page 16) Write a short, objective summary of 250 which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.   Write a short summary that identifies the thesis and outlines the main argument. Reading summaries are not about your opinion or perspective – they are expository essays that explain the content of the reading. All reading summaries must include substantive content based on the students reading of the material.  Reading Material:  Doing Ethics  ORIGINAL WORK. NO PLAGIARISM3/20/2021 <i>The Euthyphro</i> https://digital.wwnorton.com/ebooks/epub/doingethics5/EPUB/content/chapter_01-07.xhtml 1/4 From The Euthyphro PLATO * * * Euthyphro. Piety . . . is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them. Socrates. Very good, Euthyphro; you have now given me the sort of answer which I wanted. But whether what you say is true or not I cannot as yet tell, although I make no doubt that you will prove the truth of your words. Euthyphro. Of course. Socrates. Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said? Euthyphro. It was. Socrates. And well said? Euthyphro. Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said. Socrates. And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities and hatreds and differences? Euthyphro. Yes, that was also said. Socrates. And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum? Euthyphro. True. Socrates. Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring? Euthyphro. Very true. Socrates. And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine? Euthyphro. To be sure. Socrates. But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel? Euthyphro. Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe. Socrates. And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature? Euthyphro. Certainly they are. Socrates. They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences—would there now? Euthyphro. You are quite right. Socrates. Does not every man love that which he deems noble and good, and hate the opposite of them? Euthyphro. Very true. Socrates. But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,—about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them 3/20/2021 <i>The Euthyphro</i> https://digital.wwnorton.com/ebooks/epub/doingethics5/EPUB/content/chapter_01-07.xht3/20/2021 Readings https://digital.wwnorton.com/ebooks/epub/doingethics5/EPUB/content/chapter_01-06.xhtml 1/3 From What Is the Socratic Method? CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS The Socratic method is a way to seek truths by your own lights. It is a system, a spirit, a method, a type of philosophical inquiry, an intellectual technique, all rolled into one. Socrates himself never spelled out a “method.” However, the Socratic method is named after him because Socrates, more than any other before or since, models for us philosophy practiced—philosophy as deed, as way of living, as something that any of us can do. It is an open system of philosophical inquiry that allows one to interrogate from many vantage points. Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and professor of philosophy at Princeton, described Socrates’ method of inquiry as “among the greatest achievements of humanity.” Why? Because, he says, it makes philosophical inquiry “a common human enterprise, open to every man.” Instead of requiring allegiance to a specific philosophical viewpoint or analytic technique or specialized vocabulary, the Socratic method “calls for common sense and common speech.” And this, he says, “is as it should be, for how many should live is every man’s business.” I think, however, that the Socratic method goes beyond Vlastos’ description. It does not merely call for common sense but examines what common sense is. The Socratic method asks: Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this potential? Vlastos goes on to say that Socratic inquiry is by no means simple, and “calls not only for the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is capable” but also for “moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage.” Such qualities “protect against the possibility” that Socratic dialogue, no matter how rigorous, “would merely grind out . . . wild conclusions with irresponsible premises.” I agree, though I would replace the quality of sincerity with honesty, since one can hold a conviction sincerely without examining it, while honesty would require that one subject one’s convictions to frequent scrutiny. A Socratic dialogue reveals how different our outlooks can be on concepts we use every day. It reveals how different our philosophies are, and often how tenable —or untenable, as the case may be—a range of philosophies can be. Moreover, even the most universally recognized and used concept, when subjected to Socratic scrutiny, might reveal not only that there is not universal agreement, after all, on the meaning of any given concept, but that every single person has a somewhat different take on each and every concept under the sun. What’s more, there seems to be no such thing as a concept so abstract, or question so off base, that it can’t be fruitfully explored [using the Socratic method]. In the course of Socratizing, it oft