Because he saw what was coming viz. nobody really knows anything at all! Even if he'd stayed long enough for Socrates to finish what was essentially Socrates talking to himself using hapless randoms from the Athenian citizenry as foils he would've learned absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero! — TheMadFool

:clap: The problem with the materialists on here who think they are "advanced in wisdom" is that they claim that Socrates knew nothing, that they themselves don't know, and that Plato's dialogues aren't supposed to teach anything. But the minute you say anything they claim that they know everything and you know nothing.

Maybe you aren't a fool or mad, after all. :smile:

Maybe you aren't a fool or mad, after all. — Apollodorus

I don't know!

I think the political dimension of Plato cannot be denied. — Olivier5

I completely agree, but I don't think the Republic is intended to be a model for an actual city.

So there is mutual influence between the souls of the citizens and the soul of the city. — Olivier5

And with this as well.

People cannot live without art. — Olivier5

He bans the poets not poetry. He is quite specific about the kinds of music would and would not be allowed.

Re. religion, is there ANY role for priests in the Republic? — Olivier5

Good question. There is one mention at 461a of a child being born without:

... the protection of the sacrifices and prayers which priestesses, priests, and the whole city offer at every marriage ...

There is no mention of which class they belong to or what their education is.

Neither do I. But I am nonetheless striving to become "advanced in wisdom". Though not sure what that is and Socrates he don't say.

By the way, to nothing, nada, zip, zero we may add "zilch", "nichts", and above all, "μηδέν" (meden)

Have you read the Cloud of Unknowing? Different take on wisdom?

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.

I would call the ideas for raising and educating children in "the city of words" communitarian rather than communist. — Valentinus

I mean communist in the original sense of the term, but neither term as they are used today includes the human breeding practices outlined in the Republic.

You take Socrates' irony and false praise at first degree. That's quite foolish in my opinion. — Olivier5

You are making that up and that's quite foolish in my opinion.

I have said many times that Euthyphro is of no interest to me at all, I only want to know what metaphysical message Plato has for the reader:

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 — Apollodorus

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

As for the anti-materialists, they may have no interest in Euthyphro or his father. They may read Plato to gain spiritual knowledge. — Apollodorus

If I wanted to read about social and cultural critique, there are many other authors to choose from.

But, apparently, you can't read other people's posts. That's why you are unaware that many scholars like Prof Gerson quoted above are of the view that the Euthyphro has a metaphysical message.

Are such characters wise? They defend social norms, — baker

But Euthyphro is not defending social norms. One of the ironies of the dialogue is that Euthyphro's acting on what he is convinced he knows regarding what the gods want is destructive of social norms. Prosecuting your own father is contrary to social norms.

Because he saw what was coming viz. nobody really knows anything at all! — TheMadFool

Socrates calls himself a midwife and a physician of the soul. He acknowledges that both have knowledge. Like the sophists he has knowledge of how to argue using reason and rhetoric,

Socrates calls himself a midwife and a physician of the soul. He acknowledges that both have knowledge. Like the sophists he has knowledge of how to argue using reason and rhetoric, — Fooloso4

What Socrates calls himself is beside the point. The point is that he doesn't tell Euthyphro what to do in the court case.

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

How do you interpret it?

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.

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. — Olivier5

For the most part, he understands it pretty well, because he understands the author.

it's about turning inward.

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. — Olivier5

And what I'm saying is that I'm not "taking Socrates' irony and false praise at first degree" as you falsely allege.

If you think that I'm "grossly misunderstanding Plato's metaphysical message" then please demonstrate where I do so. Otherwise, you're just talking for the sake of saying something, which is rather foolish and pointless IMO.

For the most part, he understands it pretty well, because he understands the author.

it's about turning inward. — frank

Some people are like kids in a puppet theater. They are so mesmerized by this Euthyphro they forget he’s just a character in a dialogue by Plato.

But I think others do it on purpose and with a clear political agenda. They are activists in the culture war on Western civilization which is why they attack Abrahamic religion and everything else they see as an obstacle to “progress”.

But I think others do it on purpose and with a clear political agenda. They are activists in the culture war on Western civilization which is why they attack Abrahamic religion and everything else they see as an obstacle to “progress”. — Apollodorus

Maybe a little.

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

How do you interpret it? — Olivier5

That would require a very long and detailed explanation. One interpretation that I agree with is that it the Plato's philosophical apology for Socrates. His lack of a strong defense is at least in part explained by the difference between public persuasion and philosophical speech (17a-18a).

The Republic covers a very broad range of subjects from the theopolitical to the epistemological, from justice to power, from the proper order of the soul to the proper order of the city.

As I am attempting to show in the thread on Socratic philosophy https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11210/socratic-philosophy/p1 any attempt to understand Plato by way of conforming to categories other than his own lead to distortions.

Rather than appeal to one or another of the conflicting "authorities" my interpretation is grounded in the details of the dialogues. The fact that one scholar or another holds views other than my own is inconclusive, for there are other scholars who do support my claims and have played a role in informing my views. The only way forward in my opinion is through the texts.

Plato is not a 'realist' or an 'idealist' or a 'materialist' or 'naturalist' and not a Platonist. If this prompts you ask "then what is he", read the thread. It is not intended to be the final interpretation, but rather, to turn your attention to the texts themselves. Plato does not provide answers that foreclose further inquiry but instead opens up the problems to in order to provoke further inquiry.

Yet there do seem to be definitive answers such as a 'theory of Forms', and such is what you are likely to find in standard textbooks. But don't take my word for it, or what you find in textbooks or elsewhere, see what the dialogues themselves say. And by this I do not mean isolated claims or passages but with a view to understanding the whole and how the parts function in the whole.

Plato is not a 'realist' or an 'idealist' or a 'materialist' or 'naturalist' and not a Platonist. — Fooloso4

In other words, you are the only one who can decide what Plato is. And it amounts to ignoring a tradition of more than a millennium according to which he was a Platonist.

It is not intended to be the final interpretation, but rather, to turn your attention to the texts themselves. — Fooloso4

I think we can read the texts ourselves, thanks very much. Besides, if you're saying "Plato is not a realist or an idealist, etc.", that sounds pretty final to me.

Plato does not provide answers that foreclose further inquiry but instead opens up the problems to in order to provoke further inquiry. — Fooloso4

The problem is you offer answers that seem to do exactly that. For example:

Euthyphro despite his high opinion of himself is not advanced in wisdom and so should not do what he intends to do. — Fooloso4

1. Where exactly does Plato or Socrates say that and where is the evidence?

2. If you know that Euthyphro "is not advanced in wisdom", doesn't that amount to saying that you consider yourself "advanced in wisdom"? What evidence have you got to support your claim?

3. I asked you a simple question, "what would you do if your own father killed someone, would you call the police or try to cover it up"? IMO If you're unable or unwilling to answer, this may suggest that you aren't as "advanced in wisdom" as you claim to be.

As I am attempting to show in the thread on Socratic philosophy any attempt to understand Plato by way of conforming to categories other than his own lead to distortions. — Fooloso4

I think you are showing that alright by deciding on Plato's behalf what his categories are.

I think you are showing that alright by deciding on Plato's behalf what his categories are. — Apollodorus

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, right?

They should be. Problem with @Fooloso4 is he makes statements without providing any evidence. And then he expects people to take him seriously.

They should be. Problem with Fooloso4 is he makes statements without providing any evidence. And then he expects people to take him seriously. — Apollodorus

You could just say: "I respectfully disagree." and leave it at that.

Socrates calls himself a midwife and a physician of the soul. He acknowledges that both have knowledge. Like the sophists he has knowledge of how to argue using reason and rhetoric, — Fooloso4

From what I can gather from the bits and pieces of information available online, Socrates' was trying to get to the bottom of issues that figured prominently in Athenian society and those that were close to his aging heart - justice, piety, to name two. He seemed to have recognized very early on that without precise definitions, there would be no clear picture of the corresponding questions and trying to find answers would be moot. From snippets of his dialog with his fellow Athenians, one thing is clear - the conversations are largely disagreements on definitions. He never got round to formulating arguments that, instead of demolishing existing ideas/theories by critical analysis of the meaning of words, actually tried to prove a philosophical standpoint on ethics, metaphysics, etc. His signature move was, simply put, refutation and not proof and thus, he would have little to no use for rhetoric - he wasn't trying to convince people that his ideas were right, au contraire, he was refuting theirs.

In this sense, Socrates is a paradoxical figure in philosophy despite being honored as the father of western philosophical traditions because truth be told, ethics, theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, and other branches of philosophy predated him and so, he didn't/couldn't have founded philosophy. Since he was challenging existing ideas in a philosophy that preceded him, he should be more correctly described as an anti-philosopher. He struck the first blow on the Athenian weltanschauung - the rest is history!

I suppose I could. However, you may remember that he did the same on the Phaedo thread. He conveniently left out the bit about immortality and when I challenged him he said it wasn't in the translation he was using. I posted several translations to show him that the missing bit should be included. I also posted the Greek text and he still denied it. IMHO something isn't right there. Either he doesn't know what he is doing or he is doing it on purpose.

Since he was challenging existing ideas in a philosophy that preceded him, he should be more correctly described as an anti-philosopher. He struck the first blow on the Athenian weltanschauung - the rest is history! — TheMadFool

You are probably correct in a sense. But the Hellenistic weltanschauung transmitted through Plato and Aristotle survived for many centuries, influenced Alexander, Rome, Christianity, Islam, and the Renaissance, and formed the very foundations of Western civilization. Not a negligible feat it seems.

I don't think it will help anything to argue, though. Let him have his opinions. Start your own thread to express yours, right?

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?"

:up:

In more modern words, there should be some distinction made between justice and religion. — Olivier5

Separation of church and state?