After reading Plato's Euthyphro, what is the best way to answer a question that asks for a definition and why?

Question

I just need help....I'm really not a Philosophy person lol

Answer 1

Socrates offered Euthyphro several viable ways out... the problem was that Euthyphro didn't like any of them.

For example, he could have just said that good was completely arbitrary and was synonymous with pleasing the gods (or at least as many as possible). He would have had to concede, though, that without consulting the gods there was probably no way to decide whether something novel was good or bad, and that what was good or bad could change at a moment's notice.

Or Euthyphro could have conceded that there is something greater than the gods which is the quality of goodness. Of course, this might have been considered by others to have been little less than outright heresy. Even so, by choosing approval instead of truth, Euthyphro unmasks himself as a didact instead of a seeker of truth and goodness.

A lot of what Plato has Socrates do in his dialogues is not necessarily making definitions impossible, but just forcing characters to accept all the logical consequences of any particular definition, ugly as they may be. If you can do that, then self-admitted gadflies like Socrates won't be able to do much to you.

Answer 2

Plato is tough, simply by fact there are 3 accessible orders to evaluate: (a million) The order of composition of the dialogues. scholars nevertheless do no longer agree on what this surely is. (2) Narrative order, i.e., the placement of the dialogues in Socrates' existence. that may no longer accessible to examine, even in spite of the undeniable fact that sparkling sequences do exist. (3) The order offering the reader the terrific risk at information. i'm going to objective for (3) and secondarily (2). start up with the two Euthyphro or Meno (the two dialectically trouble-free Socratic dialogues). proceed with the "trial and dying of Socrates" sequence: Euthyphro (in case you began with Meno), Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Then study Gorgias, an prolonged and slightly greater dialectically complicated paintings on rhetoric. Then Republic, Plato's long, complicated masterpiece.

Answer 3

One way to do it is to first provide a dictionary definition, one that is generally agreed upon.

Then, you provide your own personal definition, which may or may not agree with the dictionary definition.

Example: Define the word "Evil"

According to the American Heritiage Definition:

e·vil (ē'vəl) -adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est

Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

Now, you can say something like: "However, evil is really not that easily defined nor explained. Evil, as well as good, are relative concepts, depending on the society and/or culture that generates and interprets the meanings..."