Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 10:00 am
@sometime sun,
Considering that this is supposed to be a discussion about Plato's work the Euthyphro, the conversation should stick to only that work, Plato, and other relevant ideas of Plato's contemporaries and NOTHING else (meaning that people seeing God's image in a pizza has nothing to do with the thread and could warrant an infraction). There are other appropriate places to deal with what is being discussed here. So if you have not read the Euthyphro, then you should read that work before joining the discussion or find some other thread to participate in.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:49 pm
@Theaetetus,
Soc; 'But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another?'
'matters of difference are the just and the unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable'
'What is the nature of this quarrel as opposed to the quarrel of quantities'
'there would have neen no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences'

What is the nature of this quarrel?
That which is looking for a consensus upon moralitys piety/impiety and whether it is a universal constant, not of individuals choice, not of a gaggle of gods choice, but still of the personal but unifying belief?

So we are looking for the nature of the quarrel, rather than the quarrel itself, which comes to mean not the topic by the disregard for answer on it, but of the arguments consistency rather than constant, it essential character not the name.
And the nature in this form comes to be the discourse.
So the question was served 'and what is piety, and what is impiety?'
But Socrates is not looking for this to be explained my magnitude, for that would be to simple a matter? He is looking for the nature of piety in the form of morality. The bigger question that does not really get asked but is insisted upon to be the answer, how do all come to the same conclusion on anyhting? how are we to all agree what is right and wrong, moral and more so how do we prove it to another before knowing it ourselves?

Soc; 'Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good and hate the opposite of them?'
'But as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust- about these they dispute and so there arise wars and fightings among them.'
It is not even a question of piety anymore, not a question even of gods, it is a question of consensus, of community and how we (people,society) are to be abled to come to unifying degree of agreement and approval.
The nature of it is what is looked for, not the magnitude not even the answer.
Is argument nature?
Can it unification ever happen? This is a question about peace on earth, or heaven on earth, to not only alow another but to accept and agree of find agreement?
Did i get that right?
Does it matter, if i am asking and looking into the nature rather than the answer?
Soc; 'Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them?'
Does not?


Soc 'Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?'
THis being the nature of the quarrel.
What then does it say of a society who can come to agreement usually under one banner and constant that is a monotheistic God or are we just talking about Law?

We are those Gods at odds with the other, what does it mean to have put a single judge over All of us that has a single mind and room for disagreement, (let alone agreement).
Does a sinlge God change the nature of the arguement, search, answer?
Does God(s) even count when it comes to us trying to find the answer?
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 08:40 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101229 wrote:
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...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 03:28 am
@Fido,
Fido;101386 wrote:
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.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 06:28 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101407 wrote:
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...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 06:36 am
@Fido,
Fido;101416 wrote:
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...


Either the issue does not interest you, or you don't understand it.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 08:08 am
@kennethamy,
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...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 08:14 am
@Fido,
Fido;101443 wrote:
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...


Derail..............
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 03:44 pm
@kennethamy,
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?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 05:45 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;101604 wrote:
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?


Is something seen because it is visible, or visible because it is seen? It depends on what "because" means. Something is seen because it is visible, since what let's something be seen is that it is visible. It would not be seen unless it was visible. So, "because" here means, explanation. Its being visible explains why it is seen. But it is also true that we can say that we know it is seen because it is visible. And here, "because" means justification. "How do you know it can be seen?" "Because it is visible". Again, How do we know that something is alive? Because it is breathing. But, why is it breathing? Well, because it is alive. As in the visible/seen case, both are true, depending on what is meant by "because". Does "because" mean justification, or does it mean explanation? Depending on that. Each one is true. Consider, "The dog has fleas because it is scratching itself". Or, "The dog is scratching itself because it has fleas". Which is true? Both. "How do you know the dog has fleas?" "Because it is scratching itself." Justification. But, also, "The dog is scratching itself because it has fleas". Explanation of why the dog is scratching itself.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 10:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101448 wrote:
Derail..............

Excuse me from it... It belongs on a hogwash forum... It is all built of prejudice, and if you do not accept God as tradition does, there is nothing to waste time on... Have fun...I'm done...
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 04:29 pm
@Fido,
Thank you kennethamy, this actually helps, alot.
Justification and explanation are close reasonings, bring you to the same end but for different reason, thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Euth; 'Piety or holiness, Socrates, appears to me to be that part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men' (could also mean explanation in the place of justice here).

Is all holiness justice weighed by gods alone?

Or is God, like piety, balanced?

Do you need to be holy or pious to give attention to gods or god like structure?

Or as my understanding of the structure I have been having difficulty (in argument),
does piety precede God attention or does it come from God attention?

And the big ask is, are all men built for God attention?
and therefore the ability to perceive their preconception of piety, reinforcing it, or finding and bestowing it?

Does piety come from worsipping (attending) to God?
Or does worshipping (attending) to God come from piety?

(Or does God come from attending piety?
Or does piety come from attending God?
Or does attending God come form piety?
Or does attending piety come form God?)

Fun when you get the hang of it. Have I? or is this merely my own slant?
0 Replies
 
 

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 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/22/2019 at 04:21:30