kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 12:58 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;100514 wrote:
Would my icecream still be good if I did not love it? How could it not be?


Of course it might not. It might be poisoned. But are you just saying that piety is good because the gods love it. But, then, suppose that they began to despise it. Would it still be good? Suppose they rejected it?
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 01:11 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100535 wrote:
Of course it might not. It might be poisoned. But are you just saying that piety is good because the gods love it. But, then, suppose that they began to despise it. Would it still be good? Suppose they rejected it?


If the icecream was good, then it would be good. My loving or not loving of it, has nothing to do with the icecream being good, does it? Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft high. Regardless of what I think about it, it is still 29,029 ft high, isn't it?

A pious action is defined as an action showing loyal reverence for a person or thing (in this case god)[I was incorrect earlier when I added the addendum that gods had to love it; this is untrue]. I can show a loyal reverence to anyone, and they may still despise it, or me. But, it still was a pious action. Their opinion on my pious action has nothing to do with my action being pious.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 01:32 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;100541 wrote:
If the icecream was good, then it would be good. My loving or not loving of it, has nothing to do with the icecream being good, does it? Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft high. Regardless of what I think about it, it is still 29,029 ft high, isn't it?

A pious action is defined as an action showing loyal reverence for a person or thing (in this case god)[I was incorrect earlier when I added the addendum that gods had to love it; this is untrue]. I can show a loyal reverence to anyone, and they may still despise it, or me. But, it still was a pious action. Their opinion on my pious action has nothing to do with my action being pious.


But didn't you say that the gods love piety because they appreciate respect and admiration? But then, if they did not, if they hated it, they would not love it. But what would be the point of piety if the gods hated it. It would be counterproductive. After all, why would people be pious if not to propitiate the gods? And, if the gods actually hated piety would it be pious to praise them (say)? In fact, the gods might made acts of disrespect to them, pious, just by declaring them so. Isn't what would be pious up to the gods?
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 01:39 pm
@sometime sun,
kennethamy wrote:
But didn't you say that the gods love piety because they appreciate respect and admiration?


Since the gods are anthropomorphized, this seems like the best answer.

Quote:
But then, if they did not, if they hated it, they would not love it.


This is correct.

Quote:
And, if the gods actually hated piety would it be pious to praise them (say)?


I can praise or treat someone with respect and they can still hate my actions or me. A cashier at my grocery store could smile and wish me a "Good Day" and I could in response slap him or her in the face. This does not mean that the cashier's gesture wasn't nice, it simply means, in my case, that it annoys me when someone wishes me a "Good Day".

Quote:
In fact, the gods might made acts of disrespect to them, pious, just by declaring them so.


If we want to get into the habit of changing definitions on a whim, then there's no way I can continue this discussion. We cannot just decide to change the meaning of a word because we feel like it, and since I don't believe gods exist, I don't believe they can either.

Quote:

Isn't what would be pious up to the gods?


Well, now we're going back to morality. Is a good or bad act defined by the person that is having the act done to them?

You and I aren't playing the same language game here, I don't think.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 02:59 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;100548 wrote:
Since the gods are anthropomorphized, this seems like the best answer.



This is correct.



I can praise or treat someone with respect and they can still hate my actions or me. A cashier at my grocery store could smile and wish me a "Good Day" and I could in response slap him or her in the face. This does not mean that the cashier's gesture wasn't nice, it simply means, in my case, that it annoys me when someone wishes me a "Good Day".



If we want to get into the habit of changing definitions on a whim, then there's no way I can continue this discussion. We cannot just decide to change the meaning of a word because we feel like it, and since I don't believe gods exist, I don't believe they can either.



Well, now we're going back to morality. Is a good or bad act defined by the person that is having the act done to them?

You and I aren't playing the same language game here, I don't think.


I am not changing definitions.It would not be changing the meaning of "piety" to say that the god now thought that piety was disrespecting them. It would just be changing what counted as piety. Consider, if we once considered gold valuable, and then we no longer considered gold valuable, but coal valuable instead, that would not be changing the meaning of "valuable". It would be changing what is valuable. The same with "piety". If to be pious was to disrespect the gods, that would not be changing the meaning of "piety", it would be changing what was pious. After all, if what is pious is "what pleases the gods" (and that is what Euthyphro says) then what pleases the gods can be pious but be entirely changed. Isn't that right? I think we are playing the same language game. The gods can change what pleases them. So, piety is what pleases the gods, and it is up to the gods what pleases them.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 03:32 pm
@sometime sun,
kennethamy wrote:
I am not changing definitions.It would not be changing the meaning of "piety" to say that the god now thought that piety was disrespecting them. It would just be changing what counted as piety. Consider, if we once considered gold valuable, and then we no longer considered gold valuable, but coal valuable instead, that would not be changing the meaning of "valuable". It would be changing what is valuable. The same with "piety". If to be pious was to disrespect the gods, that would not be changing the meaning of "piety", it would be changing what was pious. After all, if what is pious is "what pleases the gods" (and that is what Euthyphro says) then what pleases the gods can be pious but be entirely changed. Isn't that right?


Ah, yes, I agree. I thought you were saying the gods would be changing what it means to be pious.

You began confusing me when you typed:

Quote:
In fact, the gods might made acts of disrespect to them, pious, just by declaring them so.


If the gods declared X act to be pious, X act would no longer be an act of disrespect. I assume you mean now that a former disrespectful act could be deemed later to be a respectful. I agree with this, but this wasn't clear at first.


Quote:
The gods can change what pleases them. So, piety is what pleases the gods, and it is up to the gods what pleases them.


Very well, then my analogies do not apply here. For humans can not change that Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft. or that trees are made out of wood simply by thinking it so. In the examples you are using, such as with piety and gold, we are making value claims. In my examples, we are making ontological claims (like that Mt.Everest is 29,029 ft), and in my examples, a person's desire does not change a thing.
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 05:29 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100492 wrote:
But why do the gods love piety? Isn't that the main question?


The central topic is the nature of piety. The question of whether or not the Gods love piety is not the driving force behind the dialog, although it is an important component in the first section of the Euthyphro. So it would be better of me to say to you that, yes, "why do the gods love piety" is a main question, but it is not the
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 05:45 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;100564 wrote:
Ah, yes, I agree. I thought you were saying the gods would be changing what it means to be pious.

You began confusing me when you typed:



If the gods declared X act to be pious, X act would no longer be an act of disrespect. I assume you mean now that a former disrespectful act could be deemed later to be a respectful. I agree with this, but this wasn't clear at first.




Very well, then my analogies do not apply here. For humans can not change that Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft. or that trees are made out of wood simply by thinking it so. In the examples you are using, such as with piety and gold, we are making value claims. In my examples, we are making ontological claims (like that Mt.Everest is 29,029 ft), and in my examples, a person's desire does not change a thing.


Why would it no longer be an act of disrespect? Why could not the gods think that acts of disrespect were pious? Just as they might declare acts of forcible rape to be good. After all, it is up to the gods to decide whether an action is pious, or whether it is good. That is just what the question Socrates proposes means. He asks whether action are pious (good) because beloved by the gods, or whether they are beloved by the gods because they are pious (good). If you choose the first horn of the dilemma, than you have to hold that the gods might love disrespect, and make disrespect pious. It is up to the gods what is pious (or moral). Or is it that an act of disrespect cannot be pious, and it is not up to the gods whether it is or not? And the same for morality. Is morality dependent on God's will, or is morality independent of God's will. That is the Euthyphro question? After all, many believers hold that there can be no morality without God, and that God's will is the standard of morality. And when you write, "if the gods declared X act to be pious, X act would no longer be an act of disrespect" that is the view you seem to be taking.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 08:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100451 wrote:
I don't think that anyone thinks God is dependent on anything, much less the support of the existing morality. But, anyway, what would that have to do with the question of whether God could turn what was wrong into right, or right into wrong simply by commanding the change?

Then I must ask you; Why did the Catholic Church pick up so much of European paganism when it was clearly dominant??? The Christian calender could be laid over the pagan without out much change... The fact is that God, who works through men, and speaks with our voices does not attack accepted morality because everyone sees their morality as good... There is no point in asking what God can or cannot do... We do not live in that age... We can see what God's messengers do, and they usually use their heads, and do what they can do, and work on the rest...

We should look at our own God and see his evolution in the Bible... The old testament God of Abraham did what he wished, was not nice or fair, often asked the impossible, and did the unthinkable... We might well compare the slaves of soddom and Gommorha... When Abraham was bargaining with God for the life of those people, which is rare enough in our day, the slaved did not count... Yet, Paul says all are equal in the sight of God... The old testament took for granted the obvious fact that minds follow bodies, and when the body is in slavery the mind goes alone...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 09:08 am
@Fido,
Fido;100579 wrote:
Then I must ask you; Why did the Catholic Church pick up so much of European paganism when it was clearly dominant??? The Christian calender could be laid over the pagan without out much change... The fact is that God, who works through men, and speaks with our voices does not attack accepted morality because everyone sees their morality as good... There is no point in asking what God can or cannot do... We do not live in that age... We can see what God's messengers do, and they usually use their heads, and do what they can do, and work on the rest...

We should look at our own God and see his evolution in the Bible... The old testament God of Abraham did what he wished, was not nice or fair, often asked the impossible, and did the unthinkable... We might well compare the slaves of soddom and Gommorha... When Abraham was bargaining with God for the life of those people, which is rare enough in our day, the slaved did not count... Yet, Paul says all are equal in the sight of God... The old testament took for granted the obvious fact that minds follow bodies, and when the body is in slavery the mind goes alone...


I don't think that God evolves anywhere. You are, I suppose, talking about the concept of God. That, of course, may evolve.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 04:18 pm
@sometime sun,
As man has changed so have his forms changed... We became more human with a more human God...In fact, all human progress is made through a change of our forms...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 06:13 pm
@Fido,
Fido;100911 wrote:
As man has changed so have his forms changed... We became more human with a more human God...In fact, all human progress is made through a change of our forms...


But if there is no God, we become more human with a more human concept of God. Maybe. Don't confuse the concept of God with God.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 09:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100415 wrote:
...or whether God has to comply with morality to be good.

Good is God for somethings (creations) sake (reason, plus, safety).
Moral is not Gods genesis, conclusion, answered.
Moral is God questioned (by us)(God is the only Thing that has no need to question Its self).
Moral, middle, God as soemthing active middle.
It is the action that comes from creation.
It is the act of questioning and us finding solution safety.
God declares nothing (if we want the real experienced truth answer)
Rape by its taking away (and giving nothing back) of self, sake, safety means nothing. It has no question, it is inert. It has no meaning but to NOT be.
It should mean nothing to us, which is the sure fire solution to it not being pleasing to anyhting lest alone God. If it means nothing it is not 'of God' and takes away the need to use as a correctional argument apart from proving the nothing it is. It does not fit anywhere let alone in a suposition. Now if you had said murder there is room for discourse, as in the example Euthyphro and Socrates gives for the finding of piety.

Fido;100449 wrote:
This restatment of the question is the one that is phrased wrongly, as an either, or... It does not address the fact that God is always dependent upon the support of existing morality... When God is seen, as in the case of Socrates, as supporting any sort of behavior, he, or they become the object of ridicule... I think Socrates was coming face to face with the mono theism of the Jews who seem to have traded with the Greeks and in some instances, resided in Athens...Monotheism is the most rational religion and paganism, as irrational could never defend itself from charges of waste and stupidity...

God is not dependant upon morality, for us to reach God only means we have devised reason for being.
We devise morality to conclude God. Which you as a non subscriber should agree rather than something like, God concludes morality to be devised.
It is a journey (boring at times) relation Not the destination solution.
irrational; without relation or reason, (without the need to understand God)(or our sometimes boring selves).

kennethamy;100451 wrote:
..turn what was wrong into right..

We are what is right and and wrong, God created, and some might say finished with us, or we (in the achievment bereavement of will) finished with God.
It is all our interpretation of God, our trial, two sided 'commandments'. Is it right or wrong? Is it speculative and does God do so as we? speculate.
Your question of a commanding changing God, takes away our choice will and morality.
None of which could exist if God ever commanded us to do anything. Think about that??? No commandments, no impossitions, no right or wrong?
We are the embodiment of what command means,
to take command begets morality.
There is one first commandment in of our creation and will gift of our very nature, do we take control. (But this could also be up for specualtion)
Do we lead.
God never gave commandments, God just could not have, as he gave us the accord/ability to command ourselves.
God may have reasoned with us, but we are the impossition of any and all commandments.

kennethamy;100492 wrote:
But why do the gods love piety?

They dont,
and i think Socrates makes this point by the conclusions/consolidations (if only mine) of the dialogue.

Zetherin;100495 wrote:
Because the gods are anthropomorphized and appreciate respect and adoration like humans do?

anthropomorphism is all appreciation.

We must go into what we believe piety to be, not just Euth theory, soon.
and i do not see room for human pursuits such as appreciation, respect or adoration to be any part of what I will later try to extol convince as my idea od piety.
God is to heavily anthropomorphised by us, but this is a natural reflex for current humans (well most pet lovers anyway), one we are gifted with or must overcome. (packaged meat)
And a lesson I learn from Euthyphro is that you cannot suplliment human traits such as preference, for Gods position of severe detatchment.
Judgement comes at the end, not in the meantime.

Any intelligent being 'as God' knows God is right (because right works, as we do and should, we know we can work right, there should be no should about it, but with the detachment we are left up to ourselves).
The only trouble comes when we decide for ourselves what isn't right for as many as other. Wjhere education comes in as more than just important.
Open education i hasten to add.
As much as possible i would say.
But i cant live for another right.
'We should only be trying to stop what we know isn't right for ourselves'.
Abit of a paradox occurring here, so will stop.
Paradoxs cant really be finshed so wont try.

kennethamy;100512 wrote:
But then why is the action pious? I would have thought you would say it was because it is loved by the gods (they want to be admired). Would the action be pious if the gods did not love it? Suppose they disliked it because they thought it was fawning?

true piety then may be disregard of the regardless God.
which with the theme of Euth means us also.

---------- Post added 11-01-2009 at 03:17 AM ----------

Zetherin;100541 wrote:
If the icecream was good, then it would be good. My loving or not loving of it, has nothing to do with the icecream being good, does it? Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft high. Regardless of what I think about it, it is still 29,029 ft high, isn't it?

A pious action is defined as an action showing loyal reverence for a person or thing (in this case god)[I was incorrect earlier when I added the addendum that gods had to love it; this is untrue]. I can show a loyal reverence to anyone, and they may still despise it, or me. But, it still was a pious action. Their opinion on my pious action has nothing to do with my action being pious.

Piety for humans sake,
As much as for all the other goodies, morality, respect, human, sake, etc.
Love I am not sure is something when true does not prooove Gods existence so is not just of or for humans.
Some of that worthy evolved anthropomorphism you were speaking of.

VideCorSpoon;100567 wrote:
The central topic is the nature of piety. The question of whether or not the Gods love piety is not the driving force behind the dialog, although it is an important component in the first section of the Euthyphro. So it would be better of me to say to you that, yes, "why do the gods love piety" is a main question...


Yes but to answer we need to uncover, the gods? love? piety?
The anthropomorphism spoken of deals with some part of what we were considering 'gods' to be (not God present) 'The gods?' just a metaphor (for today) of human kind, sa society if you will.
'love?' appreciation, previously destinguished extinguished.
'piety?' You said it, Euthyphro deals with the nature of it, not deals with what it is. (which i think we should and try and soon, while we are here)

Fido;100579 wrote:
Then I must ask you; Why did the Catholic Church pick up so much of European paganism when it was clearly dominant??? The Christian calender could be laid over the pagan without out much change... The fact is that God, who works through men, and speaks with our voices does not attack accepted morality because everyone sees their morality as good... There is no point in asking what God can or cannot do... We do not live in that age... We can see what God's messengers do, and they usually use their heads, and do what they can do, and work on the rest...

We should look at our own God and see his evolution in the Bible... The old testament God of Abraham did what he wished, was not nice or fair, often asked the impossible, and did the unthinkable... We might well compare the slaves of soddom and Gommorha... When Abraham was bargaining with God for the life of those people, which is rare enough in our day, the slaved did not count... Yet, Paul says all are equal in the sight of God... The old testament took for granted the obvious fact that minds follow bodies, and when the body is in slavery the mind goes alone...

refer to my almost not paradox.

kennethamy;100820 wrote:
I don't think that God evolves anywhere. You are, I suppose, talking about the concept of God. That, of course, may evolve.

Well said, meant, met if not for my own take on your these words.
God has already done all the evolving God needs to, becoming man was the last piece of his evolution he needed, but then who am i to think i know what God needs apart from my love and fear.
Obedience comes from too myself and all of you.

Fido;100911 wrote:
As man has changed so have his forms changed... We became more human with a more human God...In fact, all human progress is made through a change of our forms...

Since the printing press, as recent as that we had no idea what it was to be individualistic and the invention of isms came to the front.
It is only recent that we (society) have not feared God as much because of the love we hold (anthropomorphism in part) we are really just loving ourselves but with an excuse. in part, lets hope its a small part that we make excuses.
We become more individual with a more human God.
(There is good meat in these words not well executed by me).

kennethamy;100926 wrote:
But if there is no God, we become more human with a more human concept of God. Maybe. Don't confuse the concept of God with God.

You could also say; we become more 'as God' with a more human concept of God.
'As God' lending too the individual who believes he is god. poor

To not 'confuse', would mean we were able to identify concept over reality?

---------- Post added 11-01-2009 at 03:44 AM ----------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Euthyphro;
Soc; 'Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?'

How about we take our own direction and give each of us two or three personal examples or quotes of what we conceive to be pious and impious, and we may have some luck in an exposition of piety where this dialogue for all its wonder does not fully lend.

Soc; 'Tell me what is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a standard to which I may look, and by which I may measure actions, whether yours or those of anyone else, and then I shall be able to say that such and such an action is pious, such another is impious.'

You see i think we would be better served if we gave example so we could better see what the nature of piety is by example, am I the only one who thinks so? 'nature of this idea' to gain an idea we need refference to that ideas nature. Nature is viewable through documentary process.
I am mere where it comes to Socrates mind process, i need my example, i.e e.g. Poor Euthyphro didn't stand a chance.
And VidecCorSpoon look again at what i said about his reclining, he may laugh but not at anyone expence, he says in this that he would gladly pay people to sit an listen to him, I love that about him and his own tenable piety.

Euth; 'Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them.'
Socrates congratualtes him for this titbit, where as i find it childish and subsequent, but with the magnitude of Socratic process he not only gives us this piece from these words but memorialises Euth for them.
Poor Euthyphro.

I would say 'on piety' to start;
You tend to think they are being kind to you, when you are being kind (tending) to them.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 07:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100926 wrote:
But if there is no God, we become more human with a more human concept of God. Maybe. Don't confuse the concept of God with God.

Of course I confuse the concept of God with the God... We do not know things, but the concept of things...It is part and parcel of our knolwedge... So the concept of God though it tells us nothinng of God which is entirely infinite, it does tell us a lot about us...As we have become more human we have looked for a more human God...As we have grown, our concept of God and heaven have grown more distant... We used to be able to reach heaven by a beanstalk, or a tower, or a mountaintop. Now heaven is beyond the stars.. Our reach exceeds our grasp...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:09 am
@Fido,
Fido;100984 wrote:
Of course I confuse the concept of God with the God... We do not know things, but the concept of things...It is part and parcel of our knolwedge... So the concept of God though it tells us nothinng of God which is entirely infinite, it does tell us a lot about us...As we have become more human we have looked for a more human God...As we have grown, our concept of God and heaven have grown more distant... We used to be able to reach heaven by a beanstalk, or a tower, or a mountaintop. Now heaven is beyond the stars.. Our reach exceeds our grasp...


Well, the concept of God exists. So if you confuse the concept of God with God, then it follows that you believe God exists. But to believe that God exists because the concept of God exists, is fallacious. For then you would have to believe mermaids exist because the concept of mermaid exists, or that unicorns exist because the concept of unicorn exists, and so on. Do you believe mermaids and unicorns exist too?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:18 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100986 wrote:
Well, the concept of God exists. So if you confuse the concept of God with God, then it follows that you believe God exists. But to believe that God exists because the concept of God exists, is fallacious. For then you would have to believe mermaids exist because the concept of mermaid exists, or that unicorns exist because the concept of unicorn exists, and so on. Do you believe mermaids and unicorns exist too?

I would not say it follows that God exists... People see the face of God in stains on the wall and in old cheese on a pizza... How do they recognize the face having never seen God and only seen representations of another's conception of God???
I presume a cause for what I see as effect; but I have too little information to form an idea...God; if there is such a being must be big where I am small... I am certain I could draw up a picture of God out of all my conjectures, but what would I have of the infinte then??? No; I have done the impossible often enough to realize when another attempt is at hand, and this time I am going to let it go... I can't say there is God, so my beliefs on the matter are not worth sharing...We have imaginations, and our fears and desires feed our imagination enough to put a face on any old nothing...A true concept is a judgement, and if it is only so much of imagination working overtime, then it is not a judgement of merit on the nature of God, and it is still a judgement on our nature... We need God and fear God, so the mind supplies a quasi concept.. It is meaningless..
0 Replies
 
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:25 pm
@sometime sun,
Where oh where did Euthyphro go?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:51 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;101143 wrote:
Where oh where did Euthyphro go?


Wish I knew. The question still is whether piety (morality) is just whatever the gods love, or whether the gods love what is pious (or moral).
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 09:10 pm
@sometime sun,
Try to define morality, piety, love, or God and you will find you are dealing with moral concepts...If I were fuilding a hot rod motor, what I would call this is stacking tolerances...The words are without definiton, and the variables are too numerous... How did Socrates do???
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 07:10 am
@Fido,
Fido;101155 wrote:
.The words are without definiton, ?


Look into the dictionary. There, the definitions are.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Euthyphro
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 06:38:36