Euthyphro

Look into the dictionary. There, the definitions are.

They are moral concepts, which is to say infinite forms... Put that in your dictionary cause it's da troof...

But this is a derail. Again. Why don't you just read the Euthyphro, and comment on it? Or, you can begin a new thread. Is an action moral because it is loved by God; or does God love it because it is a moral action? Consider the consequences of each possibility. Does God's loving an action make that action moral? Or is the morality of the action what makes God love it? Could God love just any kind of action? And would that make that action moral? Forget about infinite forms for a minute. Think about it in a different way.

There is no God that gives a shet...We need God, and morality leads to God's blessing as we conceive of it, long life, prosperity, peace, and happiness...It is and has always been a false point of reason... Are you still beating your wife??? Once the garbage has been injected into the discussion there is no way to get it out...It is a mental tar baby...

And on top of it, you are stacking variables...If you were doing that with something that had to work, like a motor you would be picking up the pieces...Of course, we have done the same with societies that got it wrong, but a simple comparison of working healthy societies with societies on the ropes, Like Greece, or Rome, or the U.S. can easily show what works... I can't define justice with or without a dictionary, but I know people need enough of it.... So, as well, they need enough of morality and peace... Morality is no part of God, and the notion of God is used to excuse every immorality... The most immoral fact in this world is the control of one person over another, and God as we have him justifies such control... Nothing moral comes out of this immoralty...Even when people act good they do so for the wrong reason...People should be good, moral, because they feel good, and are good, or because they think well..Spirits only mulitply the evils we must endure...

With all due respect, there is no question there... If you set yourself upon a fools quest don't expect me to throw a net over you... I'll tell you now, that in that credulous age, with people accepting the certain existence of God in one form or another, it seemed a reasonable question... We know better, both about physical reality, and the nature of mankind ... So, let me rephrase the question, and please apply it to humanity even though I say YOU... All things being equal, would you still be as smart if YOU did not know any thing??? Does it seem like a stupid question, because what humanity once believed true was to them true, and it was worth killing people over, and they did; but now we have better explainations for the working of nature and of humanity...

Soc; 'The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved by the gods.'

Are we being carried because we (allow to be) carry.
or carry because we are (allowed to be) carried.
This i dont see as correct but am trying to get there, so please i will try some more and then perhaps some one willing would either correct me or (affirm) allow me to be corrected, just trying.

Are we carried because we accept allow it
Or allow accept it because was are being carried. What about this one?

Are we seen because we see
Or see because we are seen. ?

Carried because it is carrying
Carrying because it is carried. ?

Soc; ' And is not that which is beloved distinct from that which loves?'
Euth; 'Certainly'
Still not sure of the process.

Soc; 'Well; and now tell me, is that which is carried in this state of carrying because it is carried, or for some other reason?'

A thing is not led because it it is taken
But taken because it is led. ?

A thing is not carried because it is heavy
But heavy because it is carried. What about that one, this sounds better but still not so sure.

Soc; 'And the same is true of what is led and of what is seen?'

Soc: 'And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but converselt, visible because it is seen; nor a thing led because it is in the state of being led, or carried because it is in the state of being carried, but the converse of this.
And now I think Euthyphro that my meaning will be intelligible.
'Is something intelligible because it is understood or understood because it is intelligible.
'and my meaning is, that any state of action or passion implies previous action or passion. It doe snot become because it is becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes;
neither does it suffer because it is in a stateof suffering but in a state of suffering because it suffers. Do you agree?'

Having a littl etrouble with the state of things.
My line of thought and fire agree and burn but i still have not got the spark of this. Little help please, On process specifics, please.

Unless and let me know what is correct and wrong with these,

Do we see because we are seeing something
Or seeing something because we see. ?

And a thing is not seen becaus eit is visible
But visible because it is seen. ?

Are we led because we allow to be
Or allow to be because we are led. ?

A thing is not alive because it breaths
But breaths because it is alive. ?

Thanks any help would be welcome. Am i at least close?

Derail..............