The dialogues are all inventions. — Fooloso4

They are stories. That's why it doesn't make sense to read too much into the alleged "five-year gap" for which there is no evidence anyway.

Why isn't it Jesus' story? — frank

The narrative is in the third person: “When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her … “ (John 4:7).

It isn't Jesus relating it.

Likewise, Euthyphro being real or not is a meaningless detail which makes no difference whatsoever to the philosophical meaning of the story. — Olivier5

Exactly. That's why I said that the alleged "five-year gap" is a false lead and the logical thing to do is to focus on what Plato is trying to tell us.

God is unimpressed by empty, ritualistic piety, be that from the high priest, the levite or Euthyphro; He loves justice best, even when it comes from the impious. — Olivier5

Correct. However, what if Euthyphro is, after all, just? I don't think that is has been proven that he isn't.

Maybe Plato makes it deliberately ambiguous to get the reader to think it over and as he goes over the text again, what stands out are words like "idea", "form", "pattern", etc. that lead him to think that the real message lies elsewhere and that Euthyphro's "dilemma" was simply intended to stimulate and sharpen his thought in preparation for the true message.

After all, Plato and other philosophers did believe in several layers of meaning when interpreting the poets and myth-makers.

That makes no difference. Whoever invented the story might have chosen whatever location came to his mind. — Olivier5

I think it does matter. If it wasn't Jesus who wrote the story, then it wasn't he who "invented" the story.

But I agree that Plato probably invented the Naxos location and possibly the rest of it. After all, the dialogue is just a story he uses to make a point. We don't even know that Euthyphro is not a fictitious personage.

Thanks for the useful links about Judaism. — Jack Cummins

Not at all. You can thank Wikipedia. Very useful source. And it is always useful to know a bit of history.

But it could well be that Jesus just invented whatever location came to mind, not even aware that there weren't many Samaritan's outside of Galilee. — Olivier5

Good point.

It could well be the case as a theoretical hypothesis, but unlikely as it wasn't Jesus who was telling the story.

So, Eco was probably right about over-interpretation.

I am not in any way biased against Judaism — Jack Cummins

I believe that it is important to remember that Christianity is a new religion, hence "New Testament" or "New Dispensation".

Even Judaism has undergone many changes throughout history, from polytheism to monotheism to Second Temple Judaism to Hellenistic Judaism to Reform Judaism, etc.

So, I wouldn't say it is "Christian bias" to regard Christianity as a new and different religion.

To begin with, it needs to be established that the five-year gap is actual and not just imagined. If it is actual, then it may indeed seem suspicious. But in the absence of reliable verification and further relevant data, it still leads nowhere.

I don't think it has anything to do specifically with Naxos .... I have no definitive answer. — Fooloso4

Just as I said from the start. It is a line of inquiry that leads nowhere. Speculation should not be substituted for fact.

Any other ideas?

Do you define yourself as anti-materialist? — Olivier5

I don't define myself as anything for the purposes of this discussion. You guys are taking things too seriously just like you are taking Euthyphro's character too seriously and forget he is just a character that Plato uses to convey a message or set of messages.

Anyway, IMHO the facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The central question of the dialogue is “If x is pious, is it the case that [x is pious] obtains in virtue of [The gods love x], or is it the case that [The gods love x] obtains in virtue of [x is pious]?”

Evan’s Interpretation of the Explicit Euthyphro Argument may be of interest to those who profess an interest.

2. Another question is, in view of Plato’s well-known metaphysical ideas, does the Euthyphro have a metaphysical message?

The affirmative answer is given, among many others, by Gerson Rabinowitz, Platonic Piety: An Essay towards the Solution of an Enigma, Phronesis, Vol. 3, No. 2, (1958), pp. 108 -120.

There is quite a bit said in the literature about Naxos and the dialogue. Euthyphro indicates that they were no longer farming there. (4c) — Fooloso4

OK. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is the case.

Would it be possible to know how this is of relevance to the topic? I hope this is not too much to ask.

But, even though I am bringing in the Bible, I don't come with any specific agenda, and I do think that it is possible to approach The Bible like any work of literature or texts like 'The Tao de Ching'. But, I am aware that others may not see it that way, and, sometimes, mention of the Bible can in itself appear loaded — Jack Cummins

Yes. I would imagine it quite possible to discuss the Bible or Christian philosophy without mentioning the Bible - or philosophy.

But here are some interesting verses from the Koran:

"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

“The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them!” (9:30).

“Surely, disbelievers are those who say: ‘Allah is the third of the three.’ But there is no God but One God. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them” (5:73).

And, of course, it should also be interesting to look into an analysis of the topic from the viewpoints of Marx and Freud. Or other great philosophers like Stalin and Mao Zedong.

this lead me to wonder where the Bible lies in the entire debate about theism, atheism and other religious questions central to philosophy. Many consider the existence of God, in terms of proof or lack of proof. However, it can become too abstract and I do believe that the Bible, and, how we interpret it must be relevant. — Jack Cummins

Correct. It is a vast field of inquiry and it is easy to lose sight of the wood for the trees. I do believe that it is useful to ask questions like (1) what is the source of the material contained in it, (2) its purpose, (3) who it is addressed to, etc.

Accordingly, it may be said that (1) the source of the Bible is a higher intelligence (that may be human or divine), (2) its purpose is to direct us to a higher perspective, knowledge and experience of life, and (3) that it is addressed to those who have the capacity to understand its message and the will to put it into practice.

If we take the Gospel of John, for example, Jesus says "I am the Light of the World" (John 8:12), which reminds us of Plato and Plotinus and their comparison of the universal intelligence with the sun.

Then, if we go to the other Gospels, we find the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus where Jesus and three of his apostles ascend a mountain and, on reaching the top, Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light. Jesus is then called "Son" by a voice from heaven (assumed to be God the Father), which symbolizes the achievement of the status of "son of God" i.e., perfect, deified or godlike being, radiant with the light of higher knowledge, that the teachings of Jesus enable us to achieve:

"They will shine as bright as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears let them hear" (Matthew 13:43).

Again, the three apostles may be interpreted as representing the three aspects of man, viz., body, mind, and spirit or the three Platonic aspects of the soul, whilst Jesus himself is the nous, the divine spark within us that connects us with and can lead us to the Cosmic Intelligence or Mind of God.

In other words, this describes a spiritual journey of ascent to the highest realms of philosophical thought and spiritual experience indicated by philosophers like Plato and Plotinus. Of course, other passages such as those containing analogies and parables may be said to have a moral message that serves as a guide in everyday life. Others may have wider social and political implications, etc.

It may be worthwhile considering that Christianity in the Gospels is not referred to as "Christianity", but as "the Path of Righteousness", "the Path of God", and "the Path of Truth". By walking in the ways of Jesus, the embodiment of righteousness or virtuousness, the "Light of the World" that illumines our inner world and our path in life, we establish the Kingdom of God on earth, a society characterized by righteousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14:7) and attain to God and Truth. Discovering Truth is the very core of philosophical inquiry.

So the Bible is an extremely rich source of spiritual, philosophical, and ethical ideas that may be extracted from it according to each reader's interests and inclinations, just like a work of Plato or other ancient philosophers.

The two sections have different intents theologically — Gregory

Correct. When taken at face value the two accounts may be thought to be mutually contradictory. But there is no reason why it should be impossible to harmonize and amalgamate them into a single coherent account.

In the history of biblical interpretation, four major types of hermeneutics have emerged: (1) the literal, (2) moral, (3) allegorical, and (4) anagogical.

Further rules that have been applied for example in grammatical interpretation are:

1. Definition of a word.

2. Usage.

3. Context.

4. Historical background.

5. Logic.

6. Precedent.

7. Unity.

8. Inference.

Hermeneutics: How To Interpret The Bible

Correct. Applying different levels of meaning goes back to Plato and other ancient philosophers and this tradition was continued by the Church Fathers who had enjoyed education and training in established philosophical centers like Alexandria and Antioch and were familiar with this method.

Interesting topic. I would say that in the first instance it should be borne in mind that the Church Fathers applied various levels of meaning, such as literal, moral and allegorical, when interpreting the Gospel texts. This allows for a wide range of interpretation and conclusions, theological and philosophical, that may be drawn.

And I dare say this is exactly how "Apollodorus" uses platonism: as a mere rhetorical weapon against them materialists. He treats Plato's thought as a dead body, intrumentalized in defense of religion — Olivier5

And I dare say it's the other way around. @Fooloso4 instrumentalizes Plato as a rhetorical weapon against them anti-materialists.

That is your judgment of what has been claimed, not a reference to the argument made. — Valentinus

If my judgement is "wrong", then let @Fooloso4 explain why he thinks so. This is precisely my point, he either offers no evidence or explanation for what he is claiming or provides justification that is either irrelevant or invalid.

Here are some of the things @Fooloso4 is stating or implying:

1. The Euthyphro is incapable of having a metaphysical message.

Evidence? None.

3. Euthyphro is not advanced in wisdom, therefore he should drop the case.

a. Evidence? None.

b. Is it (b1) just Euthyphro or (b2) all those not advanced in wisdom that should drop what they are doing?

3. The punishment for murder is death.

Wrong. It can be exile or fine.

4. Euthyphro says his father is guilty of murder.

What Euthyphro describes is unintentional manslaughter or accident. The court is likely to dismiss the case.

5. Euthyphro is guilty of patricide.

Evidence? None.

6. Euthyphro hates his father and wants him dead.

Evidence? None.

7. The crime took place five years prior to his conversation with Socrates.

Relevance? None.

8. L P Gerson, D Sedley, H J Krämer, W J Prior, F Fronterotta, Gerson Rabinowitz, and many other scholars, along with millions of Platonists all are ignoramuses who don’t know what they are talking about.

Evidence? None.

And this is just a sample.

Edit. Also, when challenged, he says he has the degrees to back up his claims and anyone that contradicts him should just shut up:

The simple fact of the matter is that I happen to know a great deal more about Plato than both of you put together. I have the degrees to back that up. I don't need a medal, I would however like you to [edit]. — Fooloso4

In your opinion, is that a valid argument or proof?

Some Biblical accounts may be allegorical. In which case they may still be compatible with science.

It may also be a matter of perspective. Science states that the earth goes around the sun, but everyday experience suggests that it is the other way around. One perspective is scientific, the other is psychological. Both of them are valid and useful for different purposes.

The reluctance to apply those labels is a well established method of current and recently past scholarship. — Valentinus

Nobody disputes that. But on an online discussion forum you often resort to labels for the sake of brevity. You can't compose an essay every time you state something.

Anyway, as already indicated, the issue seems to be that @Fooloso4 insists that the Euthyphro has no metaphysical content and he rejects all scholarly opinion to the contrary. Additionally, he often makes claims in support of his arguments without producing any evidence whatsoever.

Hate to butt in, buy he did that Fooloso4. You probably just missed it — frank

:up: Presumably he is far too busy carrying all those degrees he's got to pay attention to what is happening around him.

Socrates has him say something that tells the reader that this happened five years before he was going to prosecute. — Fooloso4

Socrates? Do you forget that Socrates is just another character in the same narrative by Plato? It is Plato who has them say this or that, is it not?

And, anyway, this is supposed to prove what exactly?

I look forward you reading your interpretation of one of the dialogues. And by that I do not mean copy and paste from Wiki or elsewhere. — Fooloso4

I've already done so. And I provided scholarly opinion in support of my interpretation. But you refuse to acknowledge it and irrationally insists that only a materialist, anti-metaphysical, and anti-theistic interpretation is acceptable.

Another point worth mentioning. Euthyphro says this happened when they were farming in Naxos. (4c) Naxos was lost in the Peloponnesian War with Sparta in 404, five years before the time of the dialogue. Why did he wait for five years to bring charges against his father? — Fooloso4

According to some ancient authors Euthyphro is a fictitious character. Your objection may or may not be valid if there was evidence that he was a historical person. But there is none.

Once again, you are making a statement or suggesting a theory for which you are unable to provide evidence.

It is nice to have some confirmation from someone familiar with the scholarship. — Fooloso4

The fact is that the scholarship is divided and so is general opinion on how Platonic texts are to be interpreted. Often more than one interpretation is possible, including such as involve well-known metaphysical concepts espoused by Plato.

I'm not denying your materialist interpretation, only your claim that your interpretation is the only possible or correct one.

What Greek influence would that have been? Stoicism? — frank

Well, with Alexander's conquest of the region, the primary Greek influence would have been political, religious, and social. In cultural terms, I suppose Stoicism would have been more appealing to religious groups. Though, as I said, Jews must have been aware of Platonism and would have had access to its teachings any time. As with Christians and Muslims and, indeed, with Graeco-Roman Pagans, people would practice the mainstream religion in public whilst pursuing any philosophical current (Platonism or Stoicism or a mixture thereof) in private if so inclined.

Weren't the Sadducees hellenized Jews? I wonder if they would have been familiar with Plato. — frank

Good question. The Sadducees were certainly the most Hellenized among religious Jews. Apparently, they controlled the Sanhedrin (named after Greek synedrion, "council") for some time. It seems tempting to think that Greek influence also meant Platonic influence. But I wouldn't know to what extent this was the case among the Sadducees. Was their rejection of an immortal soul even compatible with Platonism?

G Scott Gleaves in Did Jesus Speak Greek? provides an excellent introduction to the influence of Greek in Roman Palestine. He believes that Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic which seems perfectly plausible to me. I am sure that any citizen of Palestine, Jew or Greek would have had access to Platonic philosophy if they wanted to. There were ten Greek cities (Decapolis) in the region. The city of Sepphoris was only three miles from Nazareth on the road to Cana of Galilee (where Jesus turned water into wine).

Definitely Plotinus. God or Divine Being may be thought of as a being with a myriad faces through which he sees the world. And this goes back to Plato who said that God put light-bearing eyes in the faces of human beings.

In other words, the external world is constituted by force (different levels of force) and appearances or details do not exist there independently, it is only stimuli promoters what lead to appearances or details when mind does its job using the five human senses. — Nelson E Garcia

Well, we have no direct access to external objects anyway, except through the mind and the senses.

But are you saying that the external objects are created by and made of mind or "force" (like intelligent energy or creative intelligence)? Or only the mental objects perceived internally by the mind and the senses?

That may make an interesting possibility. But as I already pointed out, the text says absolutely nothing about the relationship Euthyphro has with his father. If he really believes in doing right and avoiding wrong as he seems to be saying, then it is unlikely. Besides, we don't know what the inheritance may be. And if his father is old and frail he may die soon anyway.

FIXED — Olivier5

Lol A bit too many "mays" and "ifs", and still no evidence. It can't be established that he is even "trying to be patricide". You just said he was a fool who didn't know what he is doing.

All we know is he intended to take his father to court because he believed it was his duty to do so.

Most of your challenges to what I say could easily be settled if you would just read the text. — Fooloso4

OK, let's have a look at you new "argument" if that's what it is. This is what you are saying:

1. The death sentence was generally reserved for those who had been found guilty of intentional homicide or who had commited another grave sin.

2. Socrates: What is the charge, and what is the lawsuit about?
Euthyphro: Murder, Socrates.

Let's take a closer look at what this means:

1. The death sentence was "generally reserved for intentional homicide".

True, but this was not mandatory. The penalty could have been exile or a fine.

2. Euthyphro thinks his father is guilty of murder or intentional homicide.

This is also true. But there is no evidence that it was murder or intentional homicide. In fact, it sounds very much like unintentional homicide or even an accident.

It follows that there is absolutely no evidence or guarantee that (a) Euthyphro's father was guilty of murder and/or that (b1) the court would find him guilty as charged and (b2) sentence him to death.

@Fooloso4 is just saying that Euthyphro plays the role of the fool in the dialogue — Olivier5

If that's what he is "just" saying, I have no problem with it.

But what he actually says is this:

but he does not show that what he is doing is something the gods love, unless the gods love patricide. — Fooloso4

The penalty for murder was death. — Fooloso4

etc. ....

His argument is this:

1. The penalty for murder is death.

2. If taken to court on charges of murder, Euthyphro's father will be sentenced to death.

3. By taking his father to court on charges of murder Euthyphro causes his death, therefore he is guilty of patricide.

But he has no evidence for either (1) or (2).

The conclusion (3) is wrong. His argument fails.

The penalty for murder was death. Of course we have no evidence of the outcome of a trial that had not yet happened and might never have happened. — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I'm saying, viz., you've got no evidence that (a) the penalty for murder was death and (b) the alleged crime was "murder". No evidence = no evidence, there is no if or but about it.

IMHO, you are flogging a dead horse there.

The kind of Christianity that survived had a deep affinity for Platonism. Through people like Augustine, Platonism lived on for centuries. — frank

Correct. Platonism had a huge impact on the Roman Empire especially in the east, e.g., Egypt, Palestine, and Syria. There were important Platonic schools in Alexandria (Egypt), Antioch (Syria), and Tarsus (Syria), all cities with large Jewish communities, resulting in the emergence of Hellenistic Judaism.

Hellenistic influence is also evident in Palestine itself. Greek was widely spoken by Jews. St Paul who was a native of Tarsus, spoke fluent Greek and was sufficiently conversant with Hellenistic philosophy to debate with Greek philosophers in Athens. His teacher Gamaliel instructed his students both in Jewish and Greek traditions.

Christian philosophy was so close to Platonism, indeed it had been largely developed on Platonic foundations, that to suppress Platonism would have amounted to an assault on Christianity itself. Besides, Platonism stood at the apex of the Roman culture that Christianity adopted wholesale along with the administrative apparatus and legal system. In fact, Greeks called themselves "Romans" and inhabitants of Constantinople (New Rome) called themselves "Romans" (Romioi) until very recently (some possibly still do so). Arabs and Turks also referred to Greeks as "Romans" (Rum). The celebrated Persian poet Rumi, got his name from the same source (al-Rumi, literally, "from Rum", i.e., Greek Anatolia).

But all this was happening in the East. Western Christianity and, in particular, Protestantism is a different story.

If he prevailed the likely outcome would be the death penalty — Fooloso4

1. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you have zero evidence for.

The dialogue leaves open the question of whether he even does prosecute. — Fooloso4

2. Precisely. So, it is all speculation.

With regard to the dialogue there is no relevance of a court ruling for a trial that might never occur. — Fooloso4

3. The issue of relevance was in connection with your unfounded assumption that the father would have been (a) found guilty of murder and (b) sentenced to death, should a trial have taken place. But you have zero evidence for that.

So, it's back to square one (1) above.

I don't dispute that there were excesses under Christian rule that should not have happened. But it could have been worse. Philosophy saw its power and influence curtailed but it managed to survive. In fact, there was nothing to replace it until the arrival of science and rampant materialism.

how does the typical Atheist reconcile their belief system, logically? — 3017amen

Good question. I would say that one way of looking at the theism-atheism issue is that there seems to be no hard evidence for the existence of God. But there is no evidence against either.

For a philosopher, there being a God seems preferable to there being no God as this provides us with a vast area of philosophical inquiry. It is better to have something to philosophize about than to have nothing.

As for the Atheist, he probably starts with doubting the existence of God after which he starts doubting the possibility of God's existence after which he is so taken by the belief that there is no God, that it crystallizes or fossilizes into "certainty".

Whilst theism may undergo changes in terms of belief, practice, and experience, atheism seems like a dead end, a self-imposed limitation of consciousness, experience, and thought.

Also, in linguistic terms, atheism is a derivative of theism: first there was theism and then a-theism, which suggests the primacy of theism over a-theism.

Agnosticism and theism seem preferable to atheism.

If you think so then you have completely misunderstood what is at issue as I see it. But that is understandable if you start from the assumption that the dialogue is about the Forms. — Fooloso4

1. The text says nothing about Euthyphro’s relationship with his father. There is no indication that he wanted to kill him.

2. The evidence he has or believes to have is pretty flimsy.

3. The fact that Euthyphro calls it “murder” is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the court’s ruling.

4. My take is that, after hearing Euthyphro’s testimony, the court would have found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

5. As a result, the court would have either (a) acquitted Euthyphro's father or (b) imposed a fine at the most.

That's probably too poetic to be entirely true — frank

Not entirely true, but probably close enough to pass .... :smile: