Is Socrates a sophist or can be his dialogue Euthyphro regarded as a source about religion and ethics?

We would not know what a sophist was if Plato had not written about Socrates criticizing them. Socrates in fact delineates the difference between logic and sophistry. We would not know the difference without Socrates.

About 50 years after Socrates died, Aeschines described Socrates as a SOPHIST in his own trial and speech against Timarchus. Quote

AESCHINES:

Did you put to death Socrates THE SOPHIST, fellow citizens, because he was shown to have been the teacher of Critias, one of the Thirty who put down the democracy, and after that, shall Demosthenes succeed in snatching companions of his own out of your hands, Demosthenes, who takes such vengeance on private citizens and friends of the people for their freedom of speech? At his invitation some of his pupils are here in court to listen to him. For with an eye to business at your expense,(1) he promises them, as I understand, that he will juggle the issue and cheat your ears, and you will never know it;

(1) Success in this case will increase Demosthenes' reputation, and bring him more pupils and tuition fees.

Aeschines. Aeschines with an English translation by Charles Darwin Adams, Ph.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1919. [At the Perseus Project; Tufts University]

So some people still thought Socrates was a sophist many years after his death. The primary problem is that SOPHIST meant "person of accomplished wisdom" before Socrates's day and time --- the root of the word coming from "Sophia" the Greek goddess of wisdom. A sophist was, thus, a good, wise person. But by Socrates's day and time, the meaning of the name was "changed" in many people's minds because of the fees such "professed wise persons" charged and their obscurantist tactics in argument. "Sophist" became a term meaning "quibbling paid arguer" [much like "shyster" means today].

Socrates and some others distanced themselves from such "fees and tactics" by professing that they were PHILOSOPHERS or "Lovers-of-and-seekers-after-WISDOM/Sophia" --- a goddess who was, of course, never captured by (or possessed by) any mere human being. So they were "seekers/lovers" of wisdom in contrast to the later sophists who claimed to possess wisdom and be able to teach it to others for a fee. Thus Socrates's ironic comments about some named modern sophists in The Apology.

Of course Socrates convinced neither his 399 B.C. triers/jurors, nor Aeschines some 50 years later. But among actual logicians like Aristotle the distinction between Sophistry [the mere appearance of wisdom] and Philosophy [the possession of logical principles and skills which MAY facilitate wisdom with time and experience] was entirely apparent. Hence if one consults Aristotle, rather than Aeschines, Aristotle would call Socrates a philosopher, rather than a sophist, whereas average Athenians of even 50 years later, like Aeschines, would call Socrates a SOPHIST implying bad connotations to the name (when suitable) and good connotations to the name (when suitable to a different audience).

But none of the above answers your question. Eutyphro was a known "mystic" (had made "prophecies" which eventually came "true") in ancient Athens. He thought he knew everything one needed to know about religion and "the gods" given his "prophetic" powers. But he couldn't even define the "piety" he thought he possessed and to an initially "shocked" Socrates, he was about to embark upon a course of action that would lead to the 2nd most IMPIOUS offence in all of "religious" ancient Greece --- his prosecution might lead to the KILLING of his own FATHER.

So it is a great dialogue about how one person's pride in "piety and religion" can lead to that person committing the 2nd most UNETHICAL/irreligious/impious offence of the time --- PATRICIDE. The only other offence which was "worse" in ancient Greece was CONTEMPT for THE GODS --- which was one part of the accusations against Socrates. So Euthyphro is more a "source" on religious hypocrisy rather than a "source" on religion and ethics. It is a much better source on LOGIC and refutation because, according to Aristotle, human beings only argue about 4 General things: Genus (classes and classification), DEFINITION (species - specifics), properties (convertibly predicable accidents which are not definitive) and accidents (literally "What happens" to/with defineable entities). And Socrates "gets/refutes" Eutyphro on the "definition" aspect of philosophical argument.

Kevin

Answering the first question doesn't really say anything....Euthyphro has great value, see the discussion by

The Death Of Socrates

by Romano Guardini

Read and learn: https://voegelinview.com/the-sophists-and-socrates...