Then at those times not good, and thus not omni-good. — tim wood

Yes, but you keep forgetting that there are many definitions of God. If you are talking about 1st-century CE Roman Empire, for example, then "omnipotent" and "omniscient" sounds about right. I don't know about "omnibenevolent" and to be honest I don't care. The Platonic definition of the One as "unfathomable" and "indescribable" sounds good enough to me. The Church Fathers were happy with that too, so who am I to disagree?

I can't say I'm exactly weeping, but well done. :up:

So in defining God as omnibenevolent one is not making her a utilitarian. — Bartricks

Or an all-providing nanny as some think. I definitely agree that God is under no obligation to be good at all times and in exactly the same way people want him to be, just as parents don't have to be good in exactly the same way children imagine they should. Otherwise he would be subject to people's whim and cease to be God. Unfortunately, people tend to have the habit of putting an anthropomorphic spin on God because they are not used to thinking in more abstract terms and forget that they are talking about God and not the neighbor next door.

At times, I was floundering in a sea of all kinds of weird and wonderful possibilities. — Jack Cummins

Unfortunately, that often is the way things tend to go if you are not careful. In my case, I think that knowledge of traditional Platonism has saved me a lot of trouble and wasted time. Our teacher used to tell us how Plato criticized rival systems and made us write essays on this or that system and how it compared to Platonism and I learned quite a lot from that. Of course other systems and traditions can have interesting teachings and practices to offer but once you have developed a certain degree of critical thinking it is very easy to spot dishonest individuals who are trying to take advantage of people's ignorance. And there are literally thousands of them. But I believe that Jung can also be helpful in giving you a sense of sanity and of what you can trust and what you can't.

Of course, in some ways he was a cult figure, and I don't think that his ideas are really taken very seriously. — Jack Cummins

And nor should they. Maitreya definitely reminds me of Theosophy. So, it isn't entirely surprising that not many take him seriously. Although, I can easily imagine the New Age crowd of the 1970s being into stuff like that. When people no longer believe in traditional spirituality, they just make up a new one. It becomes a fashion and people just love being fashionable or "cool". Who needs Christianity when you have Theosophy or this or that kind of "Wonder Yoga"? And, unfortunately, there are always those who are ready to exploit the gullible masses.

Personally, I have nothing against new ways of manifesting one's spirituality. But I think that having some knowledge of more traditional forms tends to give you the advantage of having a sense of what is genuine and what is not. Some of my friends keep dragging me to all sorts of venues to meet this or that "guru" and I must say in 99% of cases they turn out to be fake, though I have no doubt that some of them are delusional enough to imagine that they actually have a direct line to God.

The Greek term skepsis means investigate. — Fooloso4

I beg to differ. σκέψῐς skepsis is a noun. "Investigate" is a verb. If it is the verb you are talking about, it would be σκέπτομαι skeptomai.

σκέπτομαι - Wiktionary

I do think that your earlier point about the idea of thinking about many gods being ruled by a higher one is interesting, but it is probably more in line with polytheism, — Jack Cummins

The concept of one God over many did arise in a polytheist context, but I believe it is also discernible in monotheism, though in a slightly different form, e.g., one God over many angels.

I think that it can be a source of confusion for people. On one hand, the God image represented by Christ appears to be full of compassion, but the God of the OT as angry. — Jack Cummins

I believe that they represent two different functions. One teaches humans through fear, the other through love and wisdom. But even the Christian God may be seen as angry when he sends thunderstorms, earthquakes and other natural disasters. After all, it is God who controls meteorological phenomena and nature in general.

Jesus himself is said to be the supreme judge. So, though he may not be angry as such, he certainly judges us in the afterlife and punishes the evildoers according to their deeds. In fact, in early Christianity, he was more often represented as a heavenly ruler than on the cross as became customary later.

Do you think that the two can be reconciled? — Jack Cummins

Good question. But do they have to be reconciled?

I'll start: omnipotence means able to do all, or anything. Omnibenevolence means all good. Omni/all means all, not some or part. An all good being would be unable to do anything not good, for if he did, then he would not be all good. — tim wood

I agree that if there is a God, then presumably he is omnipotent. But I don't see why he must be omnibenevolent.

Even if he is omnibenevolent, I think his benevolence would be governed by his will.

Omnipotence itself may have more than one meaning. It would probably mean power that is unsurpassed and unlimited by anything else.

If most of the greatest reasoners arrived at the conclusion that there is one god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then I think one is well justified in taking very seriously that there is such a being. — Bartricks

It looks like @Trinidad has been banned from the forum. But I tend to agree with your statement. I'm just not entirely sure about "omnibenevolent". Good or benevolent, yes, but does he have to be "omnibenevolent"?

I am asking because God's supposed omnibenevolence is often used to argue against the existence of God on the grounds that omnibenevolence implies that there should be no evil in the world, etc.

I suppose it also depends on how benevolence is defined.

A different problem would be this: Imagine if more than one god is possible. All are omnipotent of course. If one commands there to be rain in Seattle and another commands there be no rain in Seattle then, it would have to both rain and not rain in Seattle. This is a logical contradiction. Our assumption that more than one god is possible is false. There can be only ONE god. QED. — TheMadFool

What logical necessity is there for all gods to be "omnipotent" and to all want contradictory things at the same time?

I think it is perfectly possible for there to be many lower gods ruled by one supreme God and each fulfill his or her own function in harmony with the others.

I was wandering if anyone has thought of Tibet?

Millions of Tibetans have been murdered by the Chinese regime ever since the Maoists invaded their country in 1950-51.

Should we not campaign for Tibetan independence and for China to be punished for its crimes?

When he heard that the Pythia, the priestess who delivered Apollo's oracles at Delphi, said that no one was wiser than Socrates, he took this to be a riddle — Fooloso4

What Socrates actually said was:

“When I heard these things I pondered them like this: what ever is the God saying? And what riddle is he posing”?

He also said that "he believes that the Sun and the Moon are Gods".

And he said that he "would rather obey God than the men of Athens".

So, obviously, he must have believed in God/s. He was not an atheist.

Do you agree, or what is your considered opinion?

You got me. — Benkei

Me too.

But I think China has behaved despicably and should be held to account. Organizations like the China Tribunal are doing a good job exposing the Communist regime's atrocities.

But much more needs to be done. People could demonstrate outside Chinese embassies, banks, companies, phone or email them to inquire about crimes committed by the Communist Party, etc.

By the way, any ideas where we can buy stuff with "Boycott China" and similar logos?

He thinks his obligation is to the gods, but by prosecuting his father he neglects his obligations to family and the city. — Fooloso4

Well, you can't always keep everyone happy. Sometimes you need to make tough choices. But Socrates and Euthyphro have agreed that piety is "to be of service to the Gods".

Plus Socrates himself said that he would "rather obey God than the men of Athens" (Apology 29d). What is right for Socrates is right for Euthyphro, don't you think?

Defining the term does not tell us what piety itself is, it does not tell us whether Euthyphro was acting piously. — Fooloso4

Neither Socrates nor Euthyphro says that Euthyphro is not acting piously. Socrates merely says:

“For if you had not clear knowledge of piety and impiety, you would surely not have undertaken to prosecute your aged father for murder for the sake of a servant. You would have been afraid to risk the anger of the gods, in case your conduct should be wrong, and would have been ashamed in the sight of men. But now I am sure you think you know what is holy and what is not (15d – e).

Socrates has discussed the general meaning of piety which everyone must now apply as they understand it.

It may be said that he leaves it in the hands of the courts in the same way he did with his own case.

If your own father killed someone, what would you do? Would you call the police or would you bury the body in the garden? Ultimately, it is for the authorities to decide what action, if any, to take.

Socrates is the example of law-abiding citizen par excellence. If he made no exception for himself, why would he advise others to make an exception in other cases?

Also, he leaves it at that because he is conveying a more important philosophical message - to which the materialists unfortunately refuse to pay attention. But that isn't my fault.

So you're saying the Euthyphro dilemma leads us to transform this practice in the light of the idea of justice and goodness? — frank

Words or concepts have different levels of meaning depending on the area of application.

On a social level, piety is worshiping the Gods, being a good citizen, etc.

On a personal level, piety is being good to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence, by recognizing its divine identity and acting according to what is good for the self (nous) in Platonic terms.

Otherwise put, piety is acting in ways that are good and just not only to others but also, and above all, to one's own inner self.

What use is thinking/talking/writing if we're, well, talking past each other and every disagreement we have is merely a verbal dispute as opposed to a genuine/authentic one? — TheMadFool

Correct. That's why proper scholars point out time and again the importance of understanding the precise meaning of words in the Greek original.

Thanks for that. I think I have included that in the comment I just posted now.

What's the principle of piety? — frank

It is the principle that guides our actions or standard by which we measure them.

Piety is defined by Socrates as "that which is of service to the Gods".

In everyday life, "service to the Gods" is worshiping, sacrificing, obeying the laws, observing the customs, etc.

In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self.

In other words, "minding our own business" or attending to our divine self all the way to the final goal which is self-realization or union with the One.

I'm stating that neoplatonism and its concept of the One,and the merger with the one are what plato intended,rather than the obsession with forms or the dialogues many plato scholars have. — Trinidad

What do you think of the Euthyphro discussion?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11182/euthyphro

Concisely put, what we see in the Euthyphro is not that Socrates wants Euthyphro to give up the concept of piety. On the contrary, he wants Euthyphro to develop a broader and more precise definition that stands to reason and that, as we shall see, conveys a very profound Platonic teaching.

Socrates wants Euthyphro to expand his definition of piety from “that which is loved by the Gods” to “that which is loved by all the Gods (i.e., the divine)” and from there to what the actual nature of piety is.

Socrates starts in the role of student and keeps asking Euthyphro to teach him about piety.

Euthyphro eventually says that piety is a kind of justice

What kind of justice?

Of the kind that is pleasing to the Gods.

Socrates at this point assumes the role of teacher and suggests that piety is a form of justice that assists the Gods in achieving an act. What might this act be?

Euthyphro insists that piety is knowing how to speak and act in a way that is pleasing to the Gods.

Socrates suggests that piety must be the science of putting requests and giving returns to them (or giving and asking).

Euthyphro exclaims that Socrates understands him well.

Socrates agrees and explains that the reason he understands Euthyphro so well is that he pays close attention to everything Euthyphro says so that “nothing shall fall to the ground” (14d)

“Fall to the ground” means nothing else than “be rendered invalid”. In other words, Euthyphro’s words are accepted as valid. The concept of piety as something that is of service to the Gods stands. It only needs clarification.

The only thing that remains in need of clarification is (a) “what is the divine?” (ti esti to theion) and (b) “what is the act or work in the accomplishment of which piety can assist?”

The answer is that (a) the divine is the nous (a key conception in Plato) and that (b) its function or “work” (to ergon) is to apprehend the Platonic ideas.

Therefore, the service that piety renders to the Gods lies in aiding them to perform their “work” or function of apprehending the ideas.

The definition of “the pious” (to hosion) depends in the first place on the definition of “the Gods” and in the second on the definition of the “divine work” (to ergon) that piety is supposed to assist.

This is the true intent of the dialogue, to uphold the principle of piety whilst endowing it with a deeper, Platonic meaning.

W Gerson Rabinowitz, Platonic Piety: An Essay towards the Solution of an Enigma, Phronesis, Vol. 3, No. 2, (1958), pp. 108 -120.

I think this would be an acceptable and rather neat solution (though variations of it are possible). What do you think?

Anyway, take all this as a footnote to the discussion. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the quotes. I would like you to consider the following.

Euthyphro makes the following key statements regarding piety:

1. Zeus, the supreme God, is the best and most just of the Gods. Therefore, Zeus should be the standard for what constitutes pious human behavior.

2. People agree that the above is the case.

3. Piety is that which is loved (or approved) by the Gods.

4. Piety is a part of justice.

5. The Gods love the pious because it is pious.

6. Piety is to prosecute wrongdoers, i.e., those who are impious, whoever they may be.

7. Not to prosecute wrongdoers is impiety.

8. Piety is what he is doing now, i.e., prosecuting his father.

9. His views of piety and his actions are backed by the law.

Whilst Socrates appears to be critical of Euthyphro’s views, we cannot overlook or ignore the fact that he criticizes some points but not others.

Significantly, Socrates disputes particular actions attributed to Zeus, but not that Zeus should serve as the standard of human conduct.

Similarly, Socrates disputes certain points such as that the Gods love the pious because it is pious, but he does not dispute that the pious is pious because it is loved or approved by the Gods, etc.

What this logically means if we put all the above together, is that Socrates has no intention to denigrate piety or to demolish Euthyphro’s beliefs about piety – which he could easily do were this his intention – but simply to look for a more universal, unified, and better thought-out definition of piety.

It follows that the “aporia” is only apparent. If we think it through keeping in mind the cultural and religious context as well as related views held by Socrates and Plato as expressed in other dialogues, everything becomes clear: Socrates wants to establish what true piety is but wants the reader to come to the right conclusion following Socrates’ pointers.

Arguments along these lines have been made by Prof Diamond and others. I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand.

Eli Diamond, Philosophical Piety in Plato's Euthyphro - Academia.edu

It's amazing to me that anyone could regard plato as a materialist. — Trinidad

You're in the right place then.

Neo platonism is essentially a continuation and addition to platonism. The dialogues are for the novice students and to help debating prowess. — Trinidad

"Neo-Platonism" is a modern term. Platonists tend to see their philosophy as one system with different currents.

To show that the whole issue of piety is silly. — baker

I think Socrates is taking issue with wrong interpretations of piety, not piety itself.

But I think his real message was a kind of kabbalist hierarchy. The timaeus is a much neglected text of his on this site. — Trinidad

I tend to see the hierarchy as Platonic and the Kabbalah as influenced by Platonism, possibly via Islamic philosophy and Sufism.

But I agree that there doesn't seem to be much interest in Platonism here and the few threads started by some tend to prefer a materialist and atheist interpretation of Platonic dialogues.

I'm quite intrigued by how people think so I like reading religion, philosophy and psychology. I think Platonism is closest to Christianity and the most influential system in western philosophy in general, so I would say this is my main area of interest, though I tend to find other traditions interesting too. Do you classify Buddhism as a religion?

Very interesting. I happen to have similar interests myself, though I am trying to keep an open mind and not go down too many rabbit holes, at least not all at once.

So, is people's motivation to produce and engage in religion that is your main area of interest or religion itself?

I see a lot of philosophers jumping down rabbit holes and coming to no conclusions. Just look at this forum and the history of philosophy. — Trinidad

Yes. Philosophers and would-be philosophers. Some of them seem to jump down rabbit holes and go so far down that they never come back up.

So, what made you join this forum, if you don't mind my asking?

And if a person plays sports or meditates they can see working out problems can be done without linguistic thinking. — Trinidad

Is that your personal experience? Do you play sports and meditate? And who or what do you think it is that does those things?

I'm saying you don't need reasoning to know that you exist. It's self evident. — Trinidad

If you put it that way, then you are probably correct. I have no reason to doubt that I exist. So, I don't doubt and don't reason about it.

What about yourself? How do you see it?

but he does not reflect philosophically. — baker

And, above all, he does never doubt himself. That would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

Is there anything that you regard as true without reasoning? — Trinidad

That would depend on what you mean by "true". Most things in everyday life we tend to take for granted without worrying too much about the "truth" of them.

The fact you exist,does that need reasoning? — Trinidad

My feeling is that I don't need reasoning to exist as such. Conceivably, I could exist as self-aware intelligence or consciousness without reasoning. However, I don't know what would happen if I stopped reasoning for a long period of time, so it's hard to tell.

But the question is how a person will interpret and handle such "deceptive appearance". — baker

That would depend on the person. My main point was to show that deceptive appearances exist and that their cumulative effect may be to lead someone to critical thought in general and from there to philosophical reasoning.

How would our confident non-philosopher from the OP interpret it? — baker

That would be rather hard to tell and I think we are unable to find out anytime soon. Apparently, he was banned and unless he reincarnates as one of the many new members ....

But would you apply reasoning like this to things like other minds,the existence of a self,etc,etc.
Are some things not directly obvious,intuitive and axiomatic? Or is proof and philosophically reasoning needed for everything? — Trinidad

Well, even "directly obvious" things may become less obvious on investigation and "intuition" is not always accurate.

Proof and philosophical reasoning is needed according to what you aim to achieve in a particular situation and/or in life in general.

I was simply illustrating cases where experience tends to contradict appearance and may cause someone to start analyzing things philosophically. In other words, the motivating factor doesn't need to be "lack of self-esteem" as the OP suggests.

There seems to be endless ways by which humanity could end or at least be severely diminished in the coming century. — Benj96

If humanity does end, then there isn't going to be anyone around to worry about it.

If it does not end and it is severely diminished, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In any case, I doubt that communism would be the right solution to environmental problems.

The Socratic way is dialectical. To this end I hope others will contribute. — Fooloso4

I take it that by "contribute" you mean agree with you and your theories?

Don't you know, he's got "the degrees" to show that everything he says is right:

I happen to know a great deal more about Plato than both of you put together. I have the degrees to back that up. — Fooloso4

He probably has the degrees for Socrates and everything else too. So, if you contradict him you must be wrong. But let's wait and see what he's got to say ...

Where would you apply that, other than in relation to optical illusions and similar? — baker

In politics, in personal relationships, and many other areas. You may buy something made in China that appears to be great only to later find that this is not the case. You may think that a social movement is a good cause only to find that it is more like a weird cult. You may think that an email is genuine only to find that it is spam, etc., etc....

I agree with this too but want to say all people have a mythology about creation with stories that tell them how to behave. They were first told around campfires and they were passed on verbally from one generation to the next. The goal of mythology is to transition youth into adults knowing the tribe's values and stories that unite them. I know of no reason why we should believe one story is more true than another. Philosophers such as Confucius have done the same with reason and without relying on supernatural beings. Why should we judge the Bible as better than the philosophers who laid out the laws (science) a society needs? — Athena

I believe that myths can be beautiful and powerful in their simplicity, in the way they convey important truths in metaphorical imagery, and in the way they appeal to our reason, our imagination, and our emotions. They explain and make sense of the world and of human life, they endow everything with meaning and purpose, and they tell us how to conduct ourselves and live our lives in a way that is meaningful and just. Myths and folk stories connect us with the unique history of our people, with what is most valuable in our cultural life, with what is good, beautiful and true in our society. They can be an irreplaceable friend and guide. Even the myths of the Bible can be beautiful and of value when properly understood and applied in our daily lives.

There is beauty, goodness and truth in every story. There is no reason to believe one story is more true than another. But at the end of the day, we choose which story appeals to us most and which seems to have the greatest value to us as an individual and to our nation or race at large. Even what science tells us is just a story, one way of looking at things or of interpreting reality among many. Truth is inexhaustible, no myth or story, be it scientific, religious or otherwise, can ever tell the whole story of humanity, of the universe, of reality and of truth itself.

So, yes. The story of the Bible is not necessarily better than the story of Greek mythology or the story of the philosophers. In essence, they all share common values. Murder, theft, adultery, perjury, etc. were not crimes only in the Law of Moses. They were crimes in Greek, Roman and other cultures, too, and rightly so. But that's where our laws come from, from the myths and stories the wise men and women of old told us to teach us how to live rightly. And it isn't just our laws that come from the history conveyed down the generations through myths. There are other valuable bits of knowledge that are good, beautiful, and true, that can enrich our moral, intellectual and spiritual life and help us turn our gaze toward something higher.

All that is required is to take what is good and discard what is less good or harmful. And this is what we have a reasoning mind for.

Turning to the gods (or more precisely priests) to learn what righteousness demands is moral externalism. Things are changing, though.

True, the forms are independent, but we seem to know them by an internal source. Socrates is said to have followed an internal voice, so with Phaedo, Meno, and to some extent Euthyphro, we have a rising tide of internalism: justifications can be found within.

To the east of Athens, the Persians are also headed toward the idea that you're born with the knowledge of good and evil. It could be that Plato knew about that, or it could just be convergent evolution.

Do you agree with any of that? — frank

There is no reason why I should disagree with any of it. In fact, I have been saying that myself. There was a general movement from the concrete to the abstract and thus from the external to the internal. When we analyze external reality in mathematical terms as Pythagoras did, we internalize it.

Interiorization of consciousness is central in Plotinus but it started with Plato. The direction is absolutely clear. It describes the journey of return from the periphery of the circle or sphere of reality back to the center. The external Gods are interiorized and replaced with ideas, forms or patterns leading to the unfathomable and indescribable One within us and above us.

It may well be possible to see this in latent form in the Euthyphro. In fact, as already noted, we can be certain that Plato himself and his immediate disciples saw it this way. But this is far from explicitly stated and it doesn’t change much about my central argument.

Socrates has refuted Euthyphro’s belief that the pious is loved by the Gods because it is pious, but not that the pious is pious because it is loved by the Gods. As that is the definition of "the pious" (to hosion), he cannot reject it, and nor does he attempt to.

He does not deny the existence of the Gods, either. Therefore, it stands to reason to say that the Gods love the pious because it is good and just, at the very least. And because the good and the just are attributes or properties of the divine, we may even say that the Gods love or approve of the pious because it is divine.

Though the dialogue appears to end in “aporia”, this is no reason to claim that it has nothing else to offer and that we can’t draw any positive conclusions from it other than atheism and nihilism as some seem to do here.