Platone
Eutifrone

The Euthyphro is one of the most enjoyable, lively, immediate, and pleasant of Plato's dialogues, and at the same time a, though elusive and almost playful, profound examination of a key theme in any religious context: what is holy?

Socrates, indicted by Meletus for allegedly corrupting the youth, encounters near the court Euthyphro, a boastful individual who self-identifies as "the greatest expert in religious matters." He is on his way to court to accuse his father of leaving a servant guilty of another murder to die. Socrates, wearing his usual mask of intellectual humility, asks the pretentious Euthyphro to instruct him on the correct religious doctrine, specifically on what should be considered holy and what not. The reasoning, truly playful and ironic from the start, is that if Euthyphro dares to accuse his father of murder, evidently not considering this an impious act, then he must be capable of teaching Socrates to discern good from evil, so that all accusations against him by Meletus would instantly fall apart.

Euthyphro, in keeping with the arrogant and presumptuous character attributed to him by Plato, the chorusmaster of this playful drama, accepts the challenge and instantly falls prey to Socrates' oratory skills, his "maieutics" which, to be honest, in this occasion aims more at unmasking the contradictions of the interlocutor than at revealing the truth, perhaps due to the particularly elusive nature of the subject.

As relentless and sardonic as ever, Socrates presses Euthyphro, progressively revealing his contradictions: is something holy because it pleases a God? But then, if it pleases one God and displeases another, is it holy or not? It is holy what pleases all the Gods, Euthyphro confidently rebuffs. But here comes the relentless question: is something defined as holy because it is dear to the Gods, or is it dear to the Gods because it is holy? The dichotomy seems insoluble, and such it will indeed be for Euthyphro, an advocate of a traditional, outdated, and therefore fallacious religion. Our Socrates, already an innovator of thought, takes a step forward, effectively replacing the many anthropomorphic gods of myth, already demolished by Xenophanes, with the very concept of divinity, tied to the logos and ethics.

If we want to continue on this path, we can suppose, with a considerable leap, to move directly from Socrates to... Augustine. By overcoming with the mere force of the monotheistic conception all disputes over the plurality of the divine will's interpretation (God is one, and His will is law), Augustine would have been able to provide, obviously from his Christian point of view, a satisfactory answer to Euthyphro. Here is a possible answer in Augustine's own words, taken from the polemic with the semi-Pelagians: "He chose them therefore - he says - before they existed, predestining to be children those whom he foresaw would be holy and immaculate; then it was not he who made them such, nor did he foresee that he would make them so, but that they would be so." Thus, God, in the act of creation, puts in potency everything that will later be realized by His omnipotent will. Saints, therefore, are not such because God makes them such, but because God has made it possible for them to be so, indeed to become so.

Grace leads to faith, faith guides the pious man in his life journey rightly and without stumbling into sin; in this way, he who is predestined by grace will perform holy actions, and in turn, will be holy. This doctrine is an elegant blend of the two options highlighted by Socrates: the holy is both "holy because dear to the gods (to God in this case)" and "dear to the gods (to God) because holy". It seems more correct, more "divine" to Augustine that God did not bestow holiness almost randomly, but that He simply arranged the conditions, namely grace, through which a man could earn holiness and truly be worthy of it.

Fascinating the excursus in patristics, but let us return to the Areopagus where the unfortunate Euthyphro is at the mercy of a never-before-so "gadfly" Socrates. The Euthyphro is an aporetic dialogue, as it does not reach a true conclusion, an answer, but merely examines all available arguments, refuting them, only to return to the starting point, following a masterful rinkcomposition. After an exhausting back-and-forth, Euthyphro ends up supporting theses already dismantled from the start, and prefers to retreat, returning to his business, also delegitimized. Socrates bemoans the missed learning opportunity, but in reality, he laughs up his sleeve, a worthy imitator of his ancestor, Daedalus, who made statues move; Socrates, similarly, makes thoughts move... of others. Thus ends this dialogue, without an answer and quite abruptly, which reveals little or nothing of Plato the philosopher's theories. But let us take it as it comes, this refined and witty Plato as a playwright, capable of constructing, on a question ever-present in the history of thought, a refined divertissement.