Clearly, he was not such, when he denied the gods. — baker

He didn't deny them. That was the charge against him, which he denied. See Apology:

"Let the event be as God wills: in obedience to the law I make my defence ... I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true? Now what are spirits or demigods? are they not either Gods or the sons of Gods?"

"Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the Sun or Moon, which is the common creed of all men? You are a liar, Meletus"

"If, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfil the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the Gods, if I disobeyed the oracle [i.e. Apollo]"

Can you provide some reference for this? Because it seems to be an awfully modern, self-helpy idea. — baker

You are kidding, right?

Socrates says:
“Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise”, etc. (Thaetetus 176a – b).

See also Timaeus, Plotinus, etc. Read Rabinowitz, Gerson, etc.

N Sedley, Becoming godlike

I think wisdom would be to be able to behave in line with social norms, but in a way that never results in damage to oneself (and ideally, others), but I don't see how this is possible. — baker

Exactly. That's why the dialogue does not solve the problem of what Euthyphro should do. But people are reading all sorts of things into it in order to promote their own personal opinion that is far from objective.

And you never heard about conflicts between parents and children about what to do and not do? — Olivier5

I have heard of personal conflicts between parents and children. I have not heard of class struggle between parents and children as two opposed classes aiming to abolish one another.

The dialogue is obviously intended to advise its reader, somehow. — Olivier5

That is exactly what I have been saying. Plato's dialogues are addressed to the reader, not to the characters in the dialogues. The materialists focus on Euthyphro's character in order to deflect attention from the fact that the dialogue may have a metaphysical message for the reader.

Do many "regular guys" in your vicinity put their father on trial for murder? No, @Fooloso4 has the point; your criticism does not stand. — Banno

1. There aren't many murders in my vicinity. And even if there were, I can see no logical connection with a work by Plato.

2. Are you saying that if someone's father committed murder then he should be acquitted on the grounds that he is someone's father? That doesn't really make sense, does it?

3. I asked @Fooloso4 what he would do if his father killed someone, would he call the police or would he bury the body in the garden? He didn't reply because he knows that the answer would demolish his case.

4. His statement was "Euthyphro despite his high opinion of himself is not advanced in wisdom and so should not do what he intends to do".

My point was, how does (B) "and so should not do what he intends to do" follow from (A) "Euthyphro is not advanced in wisdom"?

If we insist that is does follow, does it follow (a) in all cases or (b) only in Euthyphro's case?

If (b) then we need to explain why Euthyphro is an exception.

If (a) then everyone who is "not advanced in wisdom" should drop what they are doing and never do anything.

5. Plus, are Euthyphro's relatives any more "advanced in wisdom" than Euthyphro? Are people who are "more advanced in wisdom" always right? What is the definition of "more advanced in wisdom"? How do we arrive at that definition and who decides? Etc., etc. ....

You implied that there may be an account in which Euthyphro is wise, and ought do as he intends. What is that account? — Banno

Anything is possible. You seem unwilling to share what you mean by "wise".

Anyway, if we were to take Socrates' alleged description of "wise" as "knowing that one does not know anything", then Socrates was possibly "wise" in that sense.

But we can't say much about Euthyphro because he never said anything that would enable one to make an accurate judgement. As a general impression, I would say he was neither wise nor unwise, just a regular guy.

Having said that, I don't read Plato to worry about this or that character. I read him to see if he, Plato, has got any metaphysical thoughts to share. And I also read Gerson and other scholars to verify if I understood him right.

I put the start of the war before then. Maybe at the time of the destruction of the Tower of Babel. — Hanover

:up: That probably wouldn't be wrong.

You implied that he might be. I'd like to understand how. — Banno

I said it depends on what you mean by "wise" and when. Like at the beginning of the dialogue or the end, or in general, etc., etc.

I can't answer a question if I don't know what the question is.

I'm asking what you think - not Gerson, Rabinowitz and many others. Do you think him wise? — Banno

I thought I had answered that already:

As for the anti-materialists, they may have no interest in Euthyphro or his father. They may read Plato to gain spiritual knowledge. Therefore, they may take another lead offered by Socrates, viz., that "piety is doing service to the divine" that dwells within the soul, and accordingly turn their attention to the forms that take them to the divine above. — Apollodorus

looks quite right to my eye; yet you questioned it. — Banno

1. Where does "should" come from?

2. Should all people who are "not advanced in wisdom" drop everything they are doing? Or is it just Euthyphro?

it is striking that Socrates considers the betrayal of the the father as not warranted by the arguments presented as advancing the desires of particular gods. — Valentinus

It was particular Gods in the beginning but later they both agreed on "all Gods" or "the divine" in general.

And Socrates himself had the habit on turning to dreams, daimons, and Gods when deciding what course of action to take. That's how he started his philosophical career.

So after reading the dialogue, do you think Euthyphro wise? — Banno

Not necessarily. Depends on what you mean by "wise" and when.

As Gerson, Rabinowitz and many others have pointed out, the dialogue appeals to the reader to follow the lead of Socratic statements like "piety is being of service to the divine (including the divine spark within the soul)" and turn their attention to the forms, patterns or models mentioned in this and other dialogues.

Of course, this is just one possible reading. What is yours?

if my instincts are correct, mental and form maybe the same thing. — TheMadFool

Plato doesn't go into exact details because his ultimate objective is to use the forms to direct the mind to the intelligence beyond the forms.

But one way of looking at it is to think of (1) the concept of "blueness" as the Form, (2) the mental image of a particular shade of blue and object of that color, and (3) the physical object of that color.

(1) and (2) are not quite the same thing. And then you have the definition which is the intellectual description of the mental object.

Euthyphro despite his high opinion of himself is not advanced in wisdom and so should not do what he intends to do. .... Euthyphro, acting without the necessary knowledge of what he is doing, is ignorant of his ignorance. Socrates, knowing he does not know, would not prosecute his own father. He is aware of how corrosive this might be to the city, the family, and the hearth. — Fooloso4

You are making a lot of statements there for which (a) you have no evidence and (b) that are either self-contradictory or are contradicted by other statements of yours.

For example:

"Euthyphro despite his high opinion of himself is not advanced in wisdom and so should not do what he intends to do"

But what applies to Euthyphro must apply to others, don't you think? So:

Most people are not advanced in wisdom, therefore they should all drop everything they are doing.

Socrates' relatives are presumably not any more advanced in wisdom, therefore they should drop their objections.

Socrates himself says that he knows nothing, therefore he should quit telling others what to do, etc. etc.

And you still haven't told us how you know all that when even Socrates neither knows nor attempts to tell Euthyphro what to do.

In short, disharmony is the name of the game. — TheMadFool

A glass can be half empty or half full. It's all a matter of perspective. If you insists on seeing chaos and disorder everywhere and at all times, then probably that's what you will see.

The form of piety seems indistinguishable from the definition of piety to me. The former is what the latter describes. What, for example, is the difference between the form of a triangle and the definition of a triangle? — TheMadFool

Definition is the intellectual description or explanation of a thing. The Form is a supra-mental idea or pattern of which mental and physical objects are copies.

in descending order:

1. Supra-mental Form present in the Cosmic Mind.
2. Mental object and definition of it in the individual mind.
3. Physical object.

It's simply not the case that an examined life must lead to rational conclusions. One has the option of remaining agnostic. — Banno

One also has the option of being irrational. It is still possible to arrive at that decision by applying reason or rational thought.

Of course, there are those who for reasons of personal disposition feel a need to grasp at an answer - almost any answer - in order to avoid the discomfort of uncertainty. — Banno

And there are also those who for reasons of personal disposition profess uncertainty whilst also claiming certainty that everyone else's suggestions are wrong.

When we are grown up, we have personally "abolished our own childhood" so your comparison doesn't work very well. I repeat: new metaphysics often compete with old metaphysics. — Olivier5

You were talking about the "polis" and now you are shifting to the "personal". "We" is plural and stands for society or polis. Childhood in society is not abolished. As some grow up, others are born.

There are no new metaphysics. Metaphysical realities like soul and forms are eternal. They don't compete, they are complementary, just as childhood in the polis exists simultaneously with adulthood.

Plus Socrates doesn't say that he wants to replace one metaphysics with another.

In fact, by his own admission, Socrates is not any more knowledgeable than Euthyphro and thus not qualified to tell him what to do.

If Socrates is (a) not qualified to advise Euthyphro and (b) does not advise him, then (c) it is wrong to say that the dialogue is intended to advise him.

The only thing that the dialogue can possibly advise is for the reader to pursue the question or questions by appealing to their own reason.

For the materialists, one question may be whether Euthyphro should take his father to court. Unfortunately, the dialogue provides no indication or clue that would be relevant to the decision process.

As for the anti-materialists, they may have no interest in Euthyphro or his father. They may read Plato to gain spiritual knowledge. Therefore, they may take another lead offered by Socrates, viz., that "piety is doing service to the divine" that dwells within the soul, and accordingly turn their attention to the forms that take them to the divine above.

The conclusion needs to be consistent (a) with the text of the dialogue and (b) with what we know about Socrates and Plato from other dialogues.

Obviously, a new metaphysical message is always a critique of the old one. — Olivier5

Not at all. When we grow up we may see childhood in a new light. That doesn't mean that we criticize or want to abolish it. The same happens with religion. Common folk keep their religion whilst the more evolved souls move on to a more metaphysical or spiritual worldview.

Which is why I think it is safe to see all of Plato's dialogue circling around the questions of not just what is right and just for the individual man, or for the gods, but also and most importantly what is just and right for the polis. — Olivier5

It may be argued that Plato's political system was largely implemented by Alexander and his followers, with Hellenistic religion at its foundations and philosophy at its apex. There is no evidence that Plato intended to abolish religion and it never was. IMO, the Euthyphro has a metaphysical message that materialists are unable and unwilling to see.

the rhetoric about Russia being England's weapon on the mainland suggests a lot of resentment about the UK's stubborn refusal to yield was part of the equation. To Hitler, that probably was a betrayal of their "race" just as the declaration of war over Belgium in WW1. — Echarmion

Well, we can't ignore the fact that England had its own agenda. After all, we are talking about the largest empire in history and I'm sure there were plans to recover or at least save some of that past glory. And resources like oil were definitely a large factor in the equation. Conflicts of this type are always over resources.

I think it's difficult to establish Hitler's exact thinking. He had only come to power recently and he was probably still developing a coherent strategy. Stalin had been in power from the 1920s, so he had a long history and is much easier to read. Also, he had a comprehensive Marxist ideology to back up his actions.

In a way, when two big guys like that decide to fight it out some might be inclined to think "fair enough, let's sit and watch" or something. But the tragedy is that there are many smaller guys that get dragged into it and they just get squashed for no fault of theirs.

Also, Mao came to power and that was another big tragedy for Tibet, Vietnam and other smaller guys. A big and tragic mess really. It isn't just about Hitler and Stalin.

Let's not forget that this is a dialogue by Plato, right? Plato's main concern was not to criticize religion but to convey a metaphysical message. Socrates himself suggests that piety is of service to the Gods in aiding them to perform a certain "work". So, I think Gerson and other scholars are right.

The Athenians took Socrates to court for offending their Gods. So, it wasn't just Euthrypho, that's how people saw things in that particular time and place. There was nothing unusual about Euthyphro citing religion in support of his actions.

Plus, what were the chances of a conviction? Socrates himself would have been acquitted on condition that he did not re-offend.

:100:

Maybe I can take that. The end of Euthyphro is best understood as ironical, a tone frequently associated to Socrates. — Olivier5

When I first read the Euthyphro, I had already read the Republic and other dialogues, so I was familiar with the forms, etc.. But for some strange reason I never took the "aporia" as a big deal at all.

Obviously, Socrates was trying to convey a message, but I never felt that he was too concerned about Euthyphro taking his father to court. After all, the courts could have ruled that it had been involuntary manslaughter or even an accident that didn't warrant any serious punishment. Surely, the courts would have considered his age, absence of mens rea, etc, right?

So that didn't seem like a big deal to me either. He was just using Euthyphro's court case to make some other point. And as he mentioned "idea", "form", "pattern", etc., why not a metaphysical point that dawns on you when you realize that the dialogue doesn't really make much sense if you read it any other way?

This is the same game plan the Nazis were working. — Foghorn

That tends to be my view too. If we leave aside the issue of which side murdered more people than the other side, it seems to me that this was simply a struggle for resources, i.e. a continuation of the imperial expansions of the 1800s and early 1900s.

Basically, the Allies couldn't afford to let the Germans grab the oil fields of North Africa and the Mid East just as they were not prepared to let the Japanese seize oil and other resources in the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina. This is why the Germans were hoping at least to get their hands on Russian oil. But for some strange reason they messed up that opportunity.

But I agree that Hitler made the same classical mistake as Napoleon. Taking France that was just next door was a good move but Russia was a totally different thing altogether. You need to have serious logistics for that and I'm not sure the Germans were really prepared for it.

If the Germans had taken French North Africa and its oil fields, it might have been different but as it was, how do you conduct a war of that magnitude without oil to fuel your tanks and planes?

I don't know much about the war to be honest, but I think a lot of questions remain unanswered. The Soviets had been planning to conquer Germany in the 1920s when they invaded Poland and Stalin had similar plans in the 1930s. Both Hitler and Stalin were strategic chess players. Did Hitler think he could beat Stalin before Stalin made his own move on Germany? The way Hitler and Stalin divided Poland between themselves looks very suspicious to me. They must have had a reason for that and that could only have been that both of them planned to invade one another. What do you think?

This is what Prof Lloyd Gerson says on the subject:

“… we may assume that, owing to Aristotle’s testimony, Plato when he wrote Euthyphro, believed in the existence of separate Forms, even though they do not appear as such in that work […] as has been argued recently by a number of scholars, it is simply false that Socrates in say, Euthyphro, is just a philosopher concerned only with the search for universal definitions and oblivious to metaphysics[52]. For example, Socrates in Euthyphro does not just want to know what the Form of Piety is; he also believes that there is such a thing as Piety that is the instrumental cause of the piety in pious things [see 6D 10 – 11. In addition, this instrumental cause is a “model” as in Parm. 132 D2] […] Since, as we have already seen that Plato at the time of writing the Euthyphro in all probability believed in the separate existence of Forms, the appearance that the question is left open is explained (far better, in my view) by the exigencies of the dramatic dialogue structure … “

52. See Kramer 1973; Prior 2004; Fronterotta 2007

(L. P. Gerson, From Plato to Platonism, 2013, pp. 52, 58-9)

I believe that this answers @Banno's objection re aporia and I don't see any arguments presented by @Fooloso4 that would successfully challenge this.

The WWII story is a horror show too, so it's not for everybody... — Foghorn

I used to love horror movies when I was a kid but later they didn't scare me any more so they all started to just look silly and I gave up on them.

But, are you sure your movie isn't just Stalinist propaganda or something? Of course, it isn't right to kill civilians, but according to some sources there were communist guerrillas and agitators among them, so the Germans didn't have much choice. There was too much at stake to take any risks.

Plus Stalin killed many more Russians than the Germans and then don't forget Hiroshima, etc.

In the old days it was common practice to wipe out a whole defeated tribe with maybe a few kept as slaves or wives for the leaders. Just read the OT and you'll get the idea.

Also true that for things to get done, assuming there's some kind of committee/council of gods, harmony is a must. If not, any plans they have won't see the light of day. — TheMadFool

Well, that's exactly how they used to see it. There was a council of gods ruled by a supreme God as can be seen from the OT:

The LORD is greater than all gods: Exodus 18:11

Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 15:11

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:1

In general, each city or city-state had a patron god that was worshiped above other gods. there was also a national God who was above other gods. Zeus was the "King of the gods" among the Greeks, Yahweh was the Lord of all gods among the Hebrews, etc. So, monotheism started with henotheism and monolatry. As long as you regard one God as being above everything else, it doesn't really matter in any significant way. So, from that perspective, there is no great contradiction between monotheism and polytheism.

But I don't agree on the chaos/disorder aspect. I can't see too much of that where I live in any case. It all seems pretty orderly to me. Perhaps not 100% perfect, but could be worse, so why complain?

That is in line with my understanding of Plato. Still can’t say if it *is* the case, but I’d sure like it to be. — Wayfarer

Well, we can never be 100% sure but it certainly seems 100% consistent with Platonic method and thought. Personally, I can't think of any other reading that would bring more clarity to the dialogue in a Platonic sense and make it much less of a conundrum. In any case, I think that Rabinowitz's exposition is just brilliant. That's what I would call proper scholarship and I think everyone should read his paper.

Of the moderns, Lucas, Strentenholz, Beckermeier, Gerd Muller, Kocsis Tibor, Puskas Ocsi, and many others don't believe in god. — god must be atheist

Yes, but some may argue that they are all foreigners, so they don't count.

Your argument, my friend, reeks of the fallacy of "appeal to authority". In other words, no. — god must be atheist

Well, you've just appealed to the authority of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and many others. So, presumably, you reek even more. So, sorry, but nope.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, never believed in gods. Sartre and Camus did not believe in gods. Russell forumated the reason why not to believe in gods, or to believe. — god must be atheist

Yes, "forumated" is exactly what I thought they did. I totally agree.

Day by day? You'll be done watching it in about six years then.

Anyway, who's winning?

Waitta second. You guys are talking about dougs. Diffenent subject — god must be atheist

And sometimes we talk about Marx. Not "diffenent". Same subject.

are shit-eating gentlemen full of self-confidence. — god must be atheist

Aha, you mean like yourself. I cannot but concur then. You are soo right and soo bright, you know.

Socrates was an atheist. — god must be atheist

Says who?

Plus, @Trinidad has been banned. You're talking to yourself.

Psychoanalysis would simply view your arguments as a confidence in yourself. Are you Islamic or subscribe to no religion? — Gregory

So, is your argument that we should have no self-confidence and that if we do we are "Islamic"? Would you mind expanding on the logic of that?

Philosophy! — Gregory

Yes, of course there is philosophy. Cogito ergo sum. That's why Plato introduced the concept of ideas. Without ideas we go braindead. Even mathematics can be boring or turn you into a nutjob if you don't watch it. μηδὲν ἄγαν, meden agan, "nothing in excess". You need some balance to stay sane.

I would say that the arguments against ads are stronger — TheHedoMinimalist

I think so too. In most cases it's just some people trying to make money out of you. And of course, ads are also used to manipulate people for political and other hidden agendas. So, I would say about 90% of ads are no good and most of them should be banned. We get bombarded with too much information as it is, so the last thing we need is ads.

My own view/understanding of god is as an idea. And the only limitation on idea, or ideas that are any good, is that they be not self-contradictory. Seems to me a small requirement. — tim wood

Of course in philosophical terms God is an idea. But it is an interesting idea that can inspire people to think and do good things. Plus, what else is there? What good would it do to contemplate a vacuous sky or a picture of Karl Marx? Rather boring an uninspiring, don't you think? The whole point of having a mind is to create and contemplate ideas and to manifest our freedom of thought. The role of philosophy is to stimulate thought not to suppress it.

Great! An endorser. Can you resolve the paradoxical nature of Bartricks's explanations? — tim wood

I never said that I agree with everything that @Bartricks says or does. But he does make some good points that people may find worthwhile considering. I think atheist philosophy tends to get a tad boring after a while, so theism brings a bit of variation. Keeps the brain from ossifying and fossilizing if nothing else. But this is just my opinion.

But we can use our intuitions about what it is good for us to do to gain insight into why God allows the immorality, ignorance and suffering gs of the world — Bartricks

I agree. We certainly have powers of intuition and reason. All we need to do is use them. Ideally, this is what philosophy is supposed to teach us to do.

If God can commit suicide, then all good can leave reality — Gregory

Maybe he can. But if he has no reason to do so, why should he? So, he doesn't.