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. — Apollodorus

The students (philosophers) built their philosophies on the ruins of preexisting philosophies demolished by their teacher (anti-philosopher). So, yeah, Socrates created the vacuum and horror vacui did the rest!

I almost forgot how powerful Plato's and Aristotle's ideas were - they were probably expanded or tweaked to adapt them to regional conceptual paradigms but still remained recongizable as Platonic or Aristotelian.

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. — TheMadFool

If by precise definition you mean that by which we can recognize that was is said about it is true or false and what is done is either right or wrong, then I agree, But he never thought that it is pointless to pursue knowledge. You seem to want to begin with answers to the very thing that is in question. Socrates proceeds by way of the examination of opinion. We each have opinions about such things as what is just and unjust.

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. — TheMadFool

I think there is more to it. Although he does not arrive at final answers the pursuit of the question has value. We still need to evaluate and judge. He helps us in developing the necessary skills to do so.

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. — Apollodorus

This is a good example of why I no longer respond to you. You misrepresent what I said. You have done the same with others here as well. Anyone who is interested can read the thread and see what was and was not said and judge your hectoring for themselves.

You could also stand to just be respectful and patient. You are presenting ideas about Plato that most would hold to be absurd, so if you encounter resistance, just say "thanks, but I disagree."

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.

I almost forgot how powerful Plato's and Aristotle's ideas were - they were probably expanded or tweaked to adapt them to regional conceptual paradigms but still remained recongizable as Platonic or Aristotelian. — TheMadFool

Platonism was far more powerful than it is often realized. It was of course heavily sponsored by Alexander and his followers. It was transmitted through Plato’s Academy which functioned from 387 BC to 529 CE and through the so-called Alexandrian School at Alexandria, Egypt, which lasted from 306 BC to 642. Other philosophical circles formed in Rhodes, Syria, and other parts of the Greek-speaking world. In Christian times Platonism was transmitted through the University of Constantinople from 425 CE into the 15th century when the capital city was taken by the Turks. But it also made its way to Italy and so it spread to the whole of the western world (as well as to the Islamic world).

The very fact that Platonic manuscripts were preserved in Christian libraries including in monasteries gives you some idea of the unique power Platonism exerted on Europe and the Middle East. But very few people actually know that unless they are into Byzantine studies or related fields.

Fooloso4 You could also stand to just be respectful and patient. You are presenting ideas about Plato that most would hold to be absurd, so if you encounter resistance, just say "thanks, but I disagree." — frank

Thanks but I disagree forestalls philosophical discussion. I have not problem with resistance. It is standard practice. If I disagree I say why. I back up my claims with textual support. Some here do the same, others do not. Some think that accusations and misrepresentation is the same as reasoned argument.

You misrepresent what I said — Fooloso4

Well, I don't think that is the case at all. These are some of the comments made:

I think you are using the wrong translation.

Socrates says:
“… when death attacks the human being, the mortal part of him dies, it seems, whereas the immortal part departs intact and undestroyed, and is gone, having retreated from death […] And so, more surely than anything, Cebes, soul is immortal and imperishable, and all our souls really will exist in Hades” 106e -107a

Cebes replies :
“For my part, Socrates, I’ve nothing else to say against this, nor can I doubt the arguments in any way”. 107a

Simmias agrees, but still has some doubts:
“… I’m compelled still to keep some doubt in my mind about what has been said” 107b

Socrates has the final word:
“As it is, however, since the soul is evidently immortal, it could have no means of safety or of escaping evils, other than becoming both as good and as wise as possible”

Concerning the myth he tells of Hades, Socrates says:
“… since the soul turns out to be immortal, I think that for someone who believes this to be so it is both fitting and worth the risk – for fair is the risk – to insist that either what I have said or something like it is true concerning our souls and their dwelling places” 114d

For some strange reason you keep leaving out "However, since the soul turns out to be immortal". — Apollodorus

@Apollodorus asked why you ignore the fact that the text has S saying immortality was shown.

You responded that you ignore it because he didn't show it. wtf? — frank

In their Introduction, Sedley & Long say:

“… in this concluding moment Socrates and his companions are in no doubt as to what it amounts to: soul must leave the body and go to Hades. Thus, at the very close of the defence of immortality, at the point where argument reaches its limit, and is about to give way to eschatological myth, Socrates is seen yet again reaffirming the Hades mythology” p. xxxiii — Apollodorus

Etc., etc.

Anyway, what's wrong with asking you to provide some evidence for your statements like those on Euthyphro? How do you expect to have a discussion without dialogue?

Why can't you answer a simple question??? Not that you have to, but at least you could explain why. It shouldn't be a big deal.

Platonism was far more powerful than it is often realized. It was of course heavily sponsored by Alexander and his followers. It was transmitted through Plato’s Academy which functioned from 387 BC to 529 CE and through the so-called Alexandrian School at Alexandria, Egypt, which lasted from 306 BC to 642. Other philosophical circles formed in Rhodes, Syria, and other parts of the Greek-speaking world. In Christian times Platonism was transmitted through the University of Constantinople from 425 CE into the 15th century when the capital city was taken by the Turks. But it also made its way to Italy and so it spread to the whole of the western world (as well as to the Islamic world). But very few people actually know that unless they are into Byzantine studies or related fields. — Apollodorus

Good to know. You know your history well. Always a pleasure to meet someone erudite.

Anyway, what's wrong with asking you to provide some evidence for your statements like those on Euthyphro? — Apollodorus

Nothing wrong with the question. The problem is with who is asking. Your evasiveness and deceptive practices are not something I am willing to deal with anymore. You can put the blame on me and others who have experienced the same thing if you think that helps, but it is ironic given the context.

By the way, you need to read what Euthyphro says in the beginning of the dialogue to understand the circumstances. It was not a simple case of murder.

The pleasure is entirely mine. I wish all "fools" were like you. But, apparently, not.

It was not a simple case of murder. — Fooloso4

No one said it was simple. Possibly it was not even murder, more like involuntary manslaughter or something that didn't even warrant any serious punishment.

My question was, where does the text say "Euthyphro was not advanced in wisdom, therefore he should drop the case"?

And, what would you do if your own father killed someone?

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

Possibly it was not even murder, more like involuntary manslaughter or something that didn't even warrant any serious punishment. — Apollodorus

In that case would someone advanced in wisdom prosecute his father for something that may not even warrant serious punishment?

And, what would you do if your own father killed someone? — Apollodorus

It would depend on the circumstances. At worse I would report him. I would not bring a lawsuit against him.

The pleasure is entirely mine. I wish all "fools" were like you. But, apparently, not. — Apollodorus

Mine too.

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. — Olivier5

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?

That's a much better articulation of your argument.

By the way, one of the reasons why Platonism was so successful was that Hellenistic philosophy and culture in general stretched from the Italic peninsula (Magna Graecia) and North Africa all the way to Northwest India and it was very cosmopolitan. Many Platonist philosophers were Romans, Egyptians, Arabs, Jews, Persians, etc., not just Greeks.

There is in the Analects of Kongzi (Confucius) a similar problem:

The Duke of She said to Kongzi, "Among my people there is one we call 'Upright Gong'. When his father stole a sheep, he reported him to the authorities."

Kongzi replied, "Among my people, those who consider 'upright' are different from this: fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. 'uprightness ' is to be found in this." (13:18)

The premise is that filial piety is more important than civic piety. Without filial piety there will be no civic piety.

In that case would someone advanced in wisdom prosecute his father for something that may not even warrant serious punishment? — Fooloso4

If he believed that it was his duty to do so, and Euthyphro explains that he does, yes. In the same way you said you would report your father.

Whether you report someone or take them to court, it is still for the court to decide. So, Euthyphro is simply doing what he believes is his duty. At any rate, neither Socrates nor Plato says that he should drop the case. You may be right or wrong, but it is your personal opinion.

The premise is that filial piety is more important than civic piety. Without filial piety there will be no civic piety. — Fooloso4

But the city-state is based on the rule of law. Once you start tampering with it and making exceptions, the whole system falls apart. Either way, it changes nothing about the fact that the dialogue doesn't say what Euthyphro should do. Therefore, I believe that it stands to reason to see what other purpose it may have apart from not telling us about how Euthyphro should act.

By the way, one of the reasons why Platonism was so successful was that Hellenistic philosophy and culture in general stretched from the Italic peninsula (Magna Graecia) and North Africa all the way to Northwest India and it was very cosmopolitan. Many Platonist philosophers were Romans, Egyptians, Arabs, Jews, Persians, etc., not just Greeks. — Apollodorus

:ok: The other day, I was having a discussion with my niece on how the Greeks were the first philosophers insofar as Western civilization is concerned, Alfred North Whitehead had gone on record that "All of Western Philosophy is little more than a footnote to Plato." That was 2,500 years ago. Fast forward to 2021 and Greece rarely makes the news and when it does, it has nothing to do with intellectual achievements. What happened to the Greeks? Have the Greeks lost their touch or is the Greek genius lying dormant waiting to be rekindled? :chin:

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.

What happened to the Greeks? Have the Greeks lost their touch or is the Greek genius lying dormant waiting to be rekindled? — TheMadFool

Good question. I believe that after losing Constantinople (the "New Rome") and being overrun by the Turks, the next blow was Western European Enlightenment that eventually made many turn to science instead of philosophy, after which nationalism and "modernity" took over and led the struggle for independence into a new era and new weltanschauung. There are still pockets of authentic Hellenistic philosophy and spirituality, that may one day lead to a national revival. But for the most part it's all down to politics and the corrosive influence of English-based global culture spreading through the news, entertainment, and social media just like everywhere else in the world.

Are you saying that there is no clear correct answer as to what Euthyphro should do?

Are you saying that there is no clear correct answer as to what Euthyphro should do? — Fooloso4

I can't see one that would follow as an absolute logical necessity from the text. Can you?

I can't see one that would follow as an absolute logical necessity from the text. — Apollodorus

So, it reaches an impasse. It seems you now agree with @Banno and I that at least one dialogue ends in aporia.

So, it reaches an impasse. It seems you now agree with @Banno and I that at least one dialogue ends in aporia. — Fooloso4

You are reverting back to materialism, aren't you? Socrates clearly makes no attempt to dissuade Euthyphro. It may at the most be said that he wants him to think about it and make a considered decision. That's about it.

However, as already indicated, the aporia regarding Euthyphro's court case or whatever isn't really the issue. The reader is left pondering and, as he thinks it over, if he hasn't already realized it, it dawns on him that Plato is really talking about "idea", "eidos", "paradeigma", "service to the divine", etc. which can only mean that the real message is metaphysical.

As shown by Gerson and others, Plato had already developed the concept of Forms. Therefore, when Plato and his immediate disciples read the dialogue, they would immediately see the words "idea", "eidos", etc., that would put them on the right track and put Euthyphro and his dilemma on the back burner. In fact, that was exactly my experience when I first read the Euthyphro.

I can understand that someone unfamiliar with Platonic concepts may read it differently. But I think it is obvious that Plato really wrote the dialogue for his disciples, for those who knew him and his thoughts, not for the uninitiated.

As i pointed out to @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 I never took the "aporia" as a big deal at all. — Apollodorus

Either way, it changes nothing about the fact that the dialogue doesn't say what Euthyphro should do. — Apollodorus

Let me put it in the form of a syllogism:

One who is not advanced in wisdom [correction -cannot] do the correct thing in this case
Euthyphro is not advanced in wisdom. He does not have "precise knowledge" of divine things.
Euthyphro should not do what he intends to do

That he is not advanced in wisdom is evident. He says that piety is doing what the gods love, but he does not show that what he is doing is something the gods love, unless the gods love patricide.