lol I do appreciate your sense of humor but I think you are going a bit off the rails there.

He may not show that what he is doing is something the Gods love. However, he thinks that they do and that suffices as far as he is concerned.

As for "the Gods love patricide", that is too preposterous even for you to believe it. Where on earth did you get "patricide" from?

If your father kills someone and you call or report it to the police as you are required by the law, is that "patricide"???

You are reverting back to materialism, aren't you? — Apollodorus

I don't know where you got that idea from.

However, as already indicated, the aporia regarding Euthyphro's court case or whatever isn't really the issue. — Apollodorus

Perhaps not for you. The examined life is fundamental for Socrates. The just, noble, and good are fundamental for Socrates. If it cannot be determined whether what Euthyphro is just and proper or pious then it is at the heart of the issue.

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. — Apollodorus

That is not at all obvious. No doubt his students read the dialogue but I suspect they had a wider audience. I think he wrote for posterity.

That is not at all obvious. No doubt his students read the dialogue but I suspect they had a wider audience. I think he wrote for posterity. — Fooloso4

What "wider audience" and "what posterity"? Who? The dialogues were read by students of philosophy and other educated people who would have studied philosophy as part of the normal curriculum or would have heard of Plato's ideas by word of mouth. All educated Athenians were familiar with Plato and Aristotle, in the same way everybody had heard of Socrates and his exploits.

I do appreciate your sense of humor but I think you are going a bit off the rails there. — Apollodorus

Editing error. I fixed it.

He may not show that what he is doing is something the Gods love. However, he thinks that they do and that suffices as far he is concerned. — Apollodorus

And that is precisely the problem.

As for "the Gods love patricide", that is too preposterous even for you to believe it. Where on earth did you get "patricide" from? — Apollodorus

5e and the myth cycle of Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus in Hesiod's Theogony.

Patricide is (i) the act of killing one's father, or (ii) a person who kills his or her father or stepfather. The word patricide derives from the Latin word pater (father) and the Latin suffix -cida (cutter or killer).

https://wiki2.org/en/List_of_patricides

What "wider audience" and "what posterity"? — Apollodorus

You answered your own question:

The dialogues were read by students of philosophy and other educated people ... — Apollodorus

Posterity? Us!

I know exactly what "patricide" is, thank you. It still doesn't say anywhere that Euthyphro committed patricide.

Yes, Plato's wider audience were the educated upper classes, the people who knew him and about him, and who would have understood his dialogues in the intended sense, just as educated Brits would have understood Shakespeare or G B Shaw, especially those who belonged to the same social circle.

Ditto posterity, the educated people that came in the generations immediately after Plato, and who knew and understood his philosophy. The more distant posterity of today is obviously a different story. Anyway, have a nice day. And enjoy your drink.

It still doesn't say anywhere that Euthyphro committed patricide. — Apollodorus

Reading Plato requires doing more than just seeing the words on the page. Euthyphro was going to prosecute his father. If he was found guilty he would have been sentenced to death.

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. — Apollodorus

The Greeks were more than familiar with the the cyclical nature of reality (Kyklos & Anacyclosis) although they seem to have studied it only in a political sense. That their civilization as a whole would also cycle through stages - peak & trough, peak & trough - should've occurred to them a long, long time ago.

What happened to the Greeks? — TheMadFool

Christianity, of course. It changed everything.

Christianity, of course. It changed everything. — Olivier5

:ok:

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.

Like everything, there were pros and cons with Christianity. It was more universal, less warmongering than national or city-bound religions like the Greeks' or the Jews', but also (I guess) stifling for creativity. You had to tow the one line of the one god. — Olivier5

Religions, once they become dogmatic, become a pain in the neck - any difference in opinion immediately acquires a good vs evil quality. What could possibly go wrong? I wonder if Greek philosophy (Plato & Aristotle) absorbed Christianity and used the authority the latter commanded for propagation far and wide or was it the other way round, Christianity sold itself as a belief having a lot in common with Plato's and Aristotle's ideas, thus claiming it had the nod of approval of these Greek thinkers, making Christianity more appealing to the populace, including the elite? Both?

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).

Euthyphro was going to prosecute his father. If he was found guilty he would have been sentenced to death. — Fooloso4

I very much doubt that. The court would have first established what the crime was after which it ruled on the exact punishment. I think in this particular case, it would have been a fine. So, no “patricide”.

Christianity, of course. It changed everything. — Olivier5

I don't think so. It was not Christianity, it was Islam.

Christianity did have something to do with it, but not in the way people think. The Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) was a regional power that did extremely well in the face of attacks from the Slavs, the Persians, and others. It was mainly the conflicts with Persia that weakened the Greeks in the Middle East after which they began to lose territory to the Muslim Arabs in the 600s. The next blow was when its capital Constantinople was sacked by West European crusaders in 1204. The last straw came with the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453.

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.

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). — Olivier5

So, a mutual pact then! Both Greek philosophy (at least Aristotle's & Plato's) and Christianity benefited from the relationship betwixt them - Aristotle & Plato gained wide recognition, their influence extending over all of Western civilization while Christianity legitimized itself through the association. My, my, ideas working together symbiotically and synergistically like that at such a grand scale. When will the world witness another such phenomenon?

When will the world witness another such phenomenon? — TheMadFool

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

It is a matter of his intention not of what the outcome might be. He thought he would prevail against his father.

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.

It happens all the time. Ideas have their own life, they hybridize all the time. — Olivier5

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.

It is a matter of his intention not of what the outcome might be. He thought he would prevail against his father. — Fooloso4

Well, if you take "intention" as the criterion, then I'm afraid you are demolishing your own case.

If the court rule would have been a fine or, considering the defendant's age, etc., even acquittal, then intention to commit "patricide" cannot be established.

Well, if you take "intention" as the criterion, then I'm afraid you are demolishing your own case. — Apollodorus

If you think so then you have completely misunderstood what is at issue as I see it. But that is understandable if you start from the assumption that the dialogue is about the Forms.

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 — Olivier5

I see what you mean. However, the imposition of Christianity, though tending to have a negative impact, was not in the least fatal. The Greeks had enormous respect for Platonism and, as you say, many early Church Fathers had started as Hellenistic philosophers. Augustine says in his Confessions that he had been inspired to inquire into the truth after reading Platonic writings, probably Plotinus.

Christianity did not abolish philosophy. The centers of Hellenistic philosophy shifted from Athens and Alexandria to Constantinople where Classical philosophy was taught at the University of Constantinople from 425 CE to 1453 CE when the city fell into the hands of the Turks. That is a whole millennium in my reckoning.

All the works of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, etc. were preserved by Christian Greeks, Armenians, and others, and manuscripts were carefully copied by Christian librarians and even monks. The Arabs got copies of the manuscripts by soliciting them from the Byzantine court from the 700s when there was an extensive Translation Movement started by Muslim rulers who aimed to impart some cultural credibility to Islam just like the Christians did before them.

But Classical philosophy continued to be taught under the patronage of the Church at philosophical schools like Phanar College in Constantinople. As long as you did not profess to be a Pagan, you were free to learn and teach philosophy as you pleased, with some obvious restrictions. In fact, there was a Platonist revival in the Renaissance that spread to Italy through George Gemistos Platon, John Argyropoulos, Marsilio Ficino (who established a Platonic Academy at Florence) and many others.

Greek Scholars in the Renaissance - Wikipedia

Western civilization turned inward with the fall of Rome. Human life withdrew into private manors ruled by warlords. The only education that existed was protected by the fortress-like walls of monasteries. It was a good time to ponder Plato because their lives reflected his philosophy: the external world had become a dim shadow of the ideal, now past.

That's probably too poetic to be entirely true. :grin:

That's probably too poetic to be entirely true — frank

Not entirely true, but probably close enough to pass .... :smile:

:grin:

If you think so then you have completely misunderstood what is at issue as I see it. But that is understandable if you start from the assumption that the dialogue is about the Forms. — Fooloso4

1. The text says nothing about Euthyphro’s relationship with his father. There is no indication that he wanted to kill him.

2. The evidence he has or believes to have is pretty flimsy.

3. The fact that Euthyphro calls it “murder” is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the court’s ruling.

4. My take is that, after hearing Euthyphro’s testimony, the court would have found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

5. As a result, the court would have either (a) acquitted Euthyphro's father or (b) imposed a fine at the most.

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.

No, it just intrumentalized it, tried to control it, and thus stifled it. — Olivier5

Not early on. 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?

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.