Hi Amity, always a pleasure to share with you. :-)

Guess I should return to the deep songs page.

I guess that our thinkers have been immunised against the idea of philosophy as the Mistress Science by the fact that their daily lives in Cambridge and Oxford colleges have kept them in personal contact with real scientists. — Gilbert Ryle as quoted by Ray Monk

Perhaps they just lacked imagination, constrained as they were in a narrowly insular mentality. The quote above is saying in essence: "Our thinkers are better than your thinkers." But don't thoughts travel across borders? :-)

It's never been entirely alive, the way I see it, more like a half-dead zombie philosophy, by virtue of what analysis is. It's about cutting ideas into small pieces to study them one by one. The process is bound to kill those ideas. You can cut a zebra into pieces to study it too, but the zebra often ends up dead.

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

With the rise of the Protestants, the Church became rigid and bloodthirsty. Could that be what you're thinking of? — frank

The Catholic Church's corruption dates back to when it became the dominant religion in the empire. Power corrupts. The Protestants only smelled the coffee, one thousand years after it was brewed.

If a central political power controls philosophy, forbids certain thoughts, burns certain books, then that power stifles the growth of philosophy, out of fear of philosophy's power to influence people. This is what happened with platonism under Christianity: it became some dead piece of rhetorical furniture approved by the holy sea.

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. And that is precisely why he totally misreads the text.

Naxos was lost in the Peloponnesian War with Sparta in 404, five years before the time of the dialogue. — Fooloso4

IDK. That could be a mistake of the author, writing after the fact and getting dates and places wrong. Besides, maybe one could still work the fields around Naxos independently of who controlled the town. Invaders do not want to starve.

The reader naturally understands that contrary to Socrates, Euthyphro is misguided, foolish, and bent on accusing his father in a court of law. Hence it is obvious to any reasonably astute reader that Euthyphro has no filial piety.

Hence his talk of piety is cheap. That much is obvious. And sure enough, he soon gets confused when Socrates asks him how prosecuting one's father is pious, and what is piety.

The reason why he would try to get rid of his father doesn't need to be mentioned in the text. But if you wonder why, there are many possible answers, greed being one of them.

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. — Apollodorus

He is a greedy fool plotting for his father's death or banishment, possibly for the heritage.

3. By taking his father to court on charges of murder Euthyphro MAY cause his death, IF HIS CASE IS SUCCESSFUL, therefore he is guilty of TRYING TO BE patricide. — Apollodorus

FIXED

You are being disingenuous. @Fooloso4 is just saying that Euthyphro plays the role of the fool in the dialogue, a fool ready to prosecute his own father for the accidental death of a slave.

Under Constantine this was not just a theological matter it was political. — Fooloso4

It's complicated. Constantine himself was no theologian and couldn't care less which version of JC the bishops would chose. He just wanted the disputes to stop.

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. — Apollodorus

It could of course had been worse. Like the Huns could have sacked Constantinople and Rome, or a large meteorite could have wiped out mankind.

It could also have been better. Sometimes I dream about a world where Hypatia was spared and allowed to teach, where all the emperors had the wisdom of Constantine (who instated freedom of religion) and where pagan religions were left alone by Christian mobs.

Of course it was historically not possible, never in the cards, because the new polis, the empire, needed some sort of common, empire-wide moral foundation. It needed the one God if it was to remain one empire.

You mean to say, we just don't live long enough to notice it. Perhaps such events can be observed at a smaller scale at human-level time (5 - 10 years max) to be noticeable. Richard Dawkins' memes come to mind. — TheMadFool

Yes. Only some archeology of knowledge can evidence how philosophical ideas shape and reshape themselves organically over time, compete with one another, fuse with one another, and shape our world views along the way. And yes, Dawkins memes are a bit like that but too elemental to really matter. Systems of thought matter historically, ecosystems of thoughts, etc. Elemental thoughts (memes) are just pawns in this big game.

Christianity did not abolish philosophy. — Apollodorus

No, it just intrumentalized it, tried to control it, and thus stifled it.

Porphyry's books were banned by Emperor Constantine. Even Christian philosophers were routinely repudiated. Justinian I condemned Origen as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned. There are dozens of similar examples.

Origen had produced thousands of treatises and books. He had reviewed systematically all the gospels available at his time, including some now lost. For this and many other reasons, the burning of his work was a grievous loss.

We must not forget that ethnic Greeks were a very small population. By contrast, the Germanic tribes that took over the West and the Slavs that took over the East of Europe were much more numerous. The Greeks had established themselves as a power through their culture and civilization that had spread far and wide. When that was destroyed by Islam, there wasn’t much they could do. In a sense, they were betrayed by the (Christian) West. — Apollodorus

The Eastern Roman Empire had a larger population than the Western Empire. It was the most developed and richest part of the Empire. And yes, it spoke Greek and thought Greek but mixed up many nationalities.

When I say that Christianity changed everything, I mean that the imposition of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire and the destruction of pagan temples and later the fight against heresies had a detrimental effect on the kind of freedom of thought that had characterized places like Athens or Alexandria, where a Christian mob killed Hypatia. In a way, they did the opposite of what Socrates advised in Euthyphro: they placed piety above wisdom and justice, rather than below.

Greek thought started to fossilize as a result.

If anything, Islam revived interest in classic Greek philosophy. The Arabs called Aristotle the "First Teacher" and had much respect for him. They also are the ones we have to thank for copying forward and thus saving many of these books.

When will the world witness another such phenomenon? — TheMadFool

It happens all the time. Ideas have their own life, they hybridize all the time.

Some of the church fathers were trained as philosophers, eg St Augustine. So perhaps a bit of both. It is clear to me that monotheism responded to a demand for metaphysical clarity - it could not have been so successful without a certain predisposition to its message among Roman empire citizens (and other folks).

Like everything, there were pros and cons with Christianity. It was more universal, less warmongering than the national or city-bound religions of the Greeks' or the Jews', but also (I guess) stifling for creativity. You had to tow the one line of the one god.

What happened to the Greeks? — TheMadFool

Christianity, of course. It changed everything.

But if it's higher than the gods, wouldn't that make it even more unavailable to humans?

How would you explain the human knowledge of justice? — frank

Me? I don't really subscribe to the idea of gods. I suppose that for Plato, justice and wisdom were eternal forms somewhere out of the cavern. Ideals to which we (and the gods) aspire to.

Have you considered that perhaps some of us are just no fool?

That's the modern constitutional implication. But it's nothing trivial. It's based on the metaphysical idea that the gods themselves are pious, that they aspire to justice, i.e. to something higher than them.

What is this thing higher than the gods and to which they aspire? Maybe the cosmic nous of Anaxagoras, or Plato's eternal forms... The Christians of course have another answer.

The Athenians can't just drop piety. They would have to let go of a worldview that's ancient to them and upheld by Solon. — frank

I think the point was not to drop piety altogether, but to understand that the gods themselves do not always agree and men do not always agree on what the gods want. Therefore, while personal piety is something good, as it draws man to the supreme, personal piety is NOT a good judge of what is just, and should thus not feature in a court of law. Courts should only seek justice, not piety.

In more modern words, there should be some distinction made between justice and religion.

For those afraid that the gods could take offense, he reminds that the gods love what is pious not in an arbitrary manner, but rather because of something in the pious act which is lovable to them. And he proposes that this thing is justice. Therefore, the gods will love us more if our tribunals seeks only justice (without reference to piety), not less.

This is, I surmise, one possible meaning of "is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Euthyphro has a metaphysical message. — Apollodorus

For the second time: of course it does. Who said it didn't? All I am saying is that you grossly misunderstand this metaphysical message.

I don't think the Republic is intended to be a model for an actual city. — Fooloso4

How do you interpret it?

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

You've heard of generational divides? E.g. in the Republic, when exploring the theory of the four political regimes, Plato explains "how the democratic man comes out of the oligarchic one" (book VIII) and "the tyrannic man himself [...] is transformed out of the democratic man" (book IX).

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. — Apollodorus

I'm not a materialist. My impression is that you are refusing to see the ridicule in the Euthyphro character. You take Socrates' irony and false praise at first degree. That's quite foolish in my opinion.

Childhood in society is not abolished. As some grow up, others are born. — Apollodorus

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

There are no new metaphysics.

You don't strike me as the innovative type, that's for sure.

it is wrong to say that the dialogue is intended to advise him. — Apollodorus

The dialogue is obviously intended to advise its reader, somehow. Euthyphro is just a character, playing the role of the fool.

One thing that should be kept in mind is that the Republic is a "city in speech" intended to make it easier to show that justice is, for the city is the soul writ large. — Fooloso4

I think the political dimension of Plato cannot be denied. It is NOT metaphorical but literal. He went all the way to Syracuse to try his hands at politics, with rather poor results. Besides, he quite correctly argues that justice means nothing for an individual living alone like an hermit. It is by definition a social, intersubjective thing.

In the Republic, to the degree the soul of the city REFLECTS the sould of its citizens, it also SHAPES it through education. So there is mutual influence between the souls of the citizens and the soul of the city.

banishing the poets from the Republic means banishing the myths of the gods. — Fooloso4

That was not the smartest idea in there, mind you. People cannot live without art. Good art is emotionally and socially intelligent. It can also be politically or philosophically subversive, hence perhaps the temptation to banish it from the Republic.

Re. religion, is there ANY role for priests in the Republic?

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. — Apollodorus

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.

IMO, the Euthyphro has a metaphysical message that materialists are unable and unwilling to see. — Apollodorus

That may very well be the case. The metaphysical message could well be: justice is something quite different from piety, because what pleases one god displeases another and thus, the piety of one man is different from the piety of his neighbour. That the concept of justice in society must be built on something stronger and more reliable than old time religion: on wisdom rather than traditional beliefs.

Have you envisaged the possibility that Socrates' accusers could have had a point? Not saying that they were right to sentence him, but that they may have had legitimate points.

the connections between politics and religion in Athens, 5th century BCE, — Olivier5

Greek religion, Athenian religion included, is closely related to social and political structures, i.e. to polis and its parts. Progress and welfare of the polis were identified with progress and wellbeing of its citizens and vice versa. To call somebody Fortunate/lucky/happy meant that the very person is favored by gods. In other words, religion was the frame of the structure and the functioning of the ancient Hellenic poleis.

Greek religion is connected to performing and fulfilling certain established rites and rituals that were believed to be in accordance with the will of gods and in avoiding those which were opposite to their will. Since the whole society could be punished due to the impiety of one person, polis controlled the religious rites and their fulfillment as well as their violation. Because of this potential threat provoked by a person, the punishments for impiety were very rigid, mostly death penalties. That is why, in political struggle and even in personal conflicts, people were often accused for religious violation, and if this violation was “proved to be true”, the accused was usually put to death, like in the case of Socrates. Proving religious violation and impiety was easier than proving state offence or offence in private lawsuits, because the jury in those cases had the same religious feelings, opposite to the political or personal favors towards the accused.
...
According to Martin Ostwald, in the years that Euripides’ Hiketides ​were put on stage (423 ​BCE), “oligarchic tendencies” entered the political stage of Athens and were especially favored amongst the young Athenian aristocrats. This coincides with the so called instable peace, i.e. the Peace of Nikias, during which, according to Thukydides, ​a new generation with new attitudes on life, religion and policy merged, a generation which grew up under the influence of the Sophists and Socrates as well.

To be continued...

Plato's main concern was not to criticize religion but to convey a metaphysical message. — Apollodorus

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

Politics was an important purpose for all learned folks at the time. Plato devoted much of his attention to it. 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. And politics were tightly connected to religion back then (as it is still).

For a tight, professional historical analysis of the connections between politics and religion in Athens, 5th century BCE, I recommend:

https://www.academia.edu/33092520/RELIGIOUS_SCANDALS_AS_PART_OF_POLITICAL_STRUGGLES_OF_LATE_5_th_CENTURY_ATHENS_THE_CASE_OF_HERMOKOPIDAI_AND_PROFANATION_OF_THE_ELEUSINIAN_MYSTERIES

There was nothing unusual about Euthyphro citing religion in support of his actions. — Apollodorus

I am not saying that the character is unusual, on the contrary he is used as an archetype, an apt example or better, a caricature of the common, up-and-coming Athenian.

The fact that Socrates had apparently praised the Spartans in the midst of the war wasn't helpful, but we know Socrates was widely scorned and ridiculed earlier. — frank

It seems pretty clear from the Republic that Plato's Socrates is antidemocratic, and holds a sort of Sparta ruled by a philosopher class as the ideal system. It is quite possible that the real Socrates was doubtful of democracy.

Certainly the victory of Sparta in the Peloponnese war seemed to show their system superior, at least in chosing capable admirals and generals. The Athenians were known to trial their generals after a defeat and sentence them to death. That's an absurd military strategy.

In the decades that followed, some authors, including Plato in the Laws, compared the political systems of Athens and Sparta with a view to find a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. The freedom afforded by the Athenian system and the material affluence it brought Athens, down to its poorest citizens, are generally acknowledged in this literature but the downside was seen as widespread immorality. Here is what so-called Pseudo-Xenophon had to say:

Then there is a point which some find extraordinary, that they everywhere assign more to the worst persons, to the poor, and to the popular types than to the good men: in this very point they will be found manifestly preserving their democracy. For the poor, the popular, and the base, inasmuch as they are well off and the likes of them are numerous, will increase the democracy; but if the wealthy, good men are well off, the men of the people create a strong opposition to themselves. [5] And everywhere on earth the best element is opposed to democracy. For among the best people there is minimal wantonness and injustice but a maximum of scrupulous care for what is good, whereas among the people there is a maximum of ignorance, disorder, and wickedness; for poverty draws them rather to disgraceful actions, and because of a lack of money some men are uneducated and ignorant.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0158

He was just using Euthyphro's court case to make some other point — Apollodorus

No way. Euthyphro examplifies the ambitious demagogue, plotting against his father in the most unprincipled way and covering it up with good old religion.

Anytus thought that Socrates had turned him away from the vicious ways of his father. — Fooloso4

More probably, Anytus thought that Socrates had corrupted his son.

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. — Apollodorus

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

SOC. Let us begin again from the beginning, and ask what the holy is, for I shall not willingly give up until I learn (1). Please do not scorn me: Bend every effort of your mind and now tell me the truth (2). You know it if any man does, and, like Proteus, you must not be let go before you speak. For if you did not know the holy and unholy with certainty, you could not possibly undertake to prosecute your aged father for murder in behalf of a hired man. You would fear to risk the gods, lest your action be wrongful, and you would be ashamed before men (3). But as it is, I am confident that you think you know with certainty what is holy and what is not. (4) So say it, friend Euthyphro. Do not conceal what it is you believe (5).

EUTH. Some other time, Socrates. Right now I must hurry somewhere and I am already late.(6)

SOC. What are you doing, my friend! You leave me and cast me down from my high hope that I should learn from you what things are holy and what are not, and escape the indictment of Meletus by showing him that, due to Euthyphro, am now wise in religious matters, that I no longer ignorantly indulge in loose speech and innovation (7), and most especially, that I shall live better the rest of my life.(8)


1. Thus Socrates is not clear yet about what piety is.
2. Implying that so far Euthyphro was not telling the truth.
3. Accusing Euthyphro of doing something that most men would think unjust, and covering up his shameful act with false piety.
4. Note the wording: "you think you know", which is different from knowing.
5. Ditto: "you believe".
6. Euthyphro cannot provide a concise, clear answer, and eludes the question.
7. A glimpse into Meletus' accusation that Socrates indulges in innovation and lose speech about Athenian religion.

In other words, Socrates is accused of being impious. His defense is that "pious" means everything and nothing, that it cannot be defined, that it helps justify the most unjust behaviors such as Euthyphro's, and therefore that justice should not concern itself with piety.

I’m sure the prosecution of Socrates was political, with his supposed atheism being a pretext. I’d like to read something about that too. — Wayfarer

I found this piece informative and well argued:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/ifstoneinterview.html

What do you make of the theory that Socrates and Plato were connected to the Thirty, and that Socrates was sentenced to death because of that, in defense of democracy?

Realism and materialism are ideas, aren't they?

If you are interested in Plato you might want to look at my thread on the Phaedo. — Fooloso4

Thank you. I'm not much into Plato to be honest, but your summary in the OP was well done, a very decent work of extracting the gist, and I know that is difficult to do. You made this one dialogue alive for me. I went back and read it, found the conclusion quite witty although the dialogue procédé is tiresome at times.

Also I owe you one because I misunderstood you at first in this thread.

So yes, I'll check your Phaedo thread.