10
Socrates. We shall soon know more about this, my friend. Just consider this question:—Is that which is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?
10
Euthyphro. I don’t know what you mean, Socrates.
10
Socrates. Then I will try to speak more clearly. We speak of being carried and of carrying, of being led and of leading, of being seen and of seeing; and you understand—do you not?—that in all such expressions the two parts differ one from the other in meaning, and how they differ.
10
Euthyphro. I think I understand.
10
Socrates. Then, too, we conceive of a thing being loved and of a thing loving, and the two are different?
10
Euthyphro. Of course.
10
Socrates. Now tell me, is a thing which is carried a carried thing because one carries it, or for some other reason?
10
Euthyphro. No, for that reason.
10
Socrates. And a thing which is led is led because one leads it, and a thing which is seen is so because one sees it?
10
Euthyphro. Certainly.
10
Socrates. Then one does not see it because its a seen thing, but, on the contrary, it is a seen thing because one sees it; and one does not lead it because it is a led thing, but it is a led thing because one leads it; and one does not carry it because it is a carried thing, but it is a carried thing because one carries it. Is it clear, Euthyphro, what I am trying to say? I am trying to say this, that if anything becomes or undergoes, it does not become because it is in a state of becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes, and it does not undergo because it is a thing which undergoes, but because it undergoes it is a thing which undergoes; or do you not agree to this?
10
Euthyphro. I agree.
10
Socrates. Is not that which is beloved a thing which is either becoming or undergoing something?
10
Euthyphro. Certainly.
10
Socrates. And is this case like the former ones: those who love it do not love it because it is a beloved thing, but it is a beloved thing because they love it?
10
Euthyphro. Obviously.
