Another point worth mentioning. Euthyphro says this happened when they were farming in Naxos. (4c) Naxos was lost in the Peloponnesian War with Sparta in 404, five years before the time of the dialogue. Why did he wait for five years to bring charges against his father?

It is nice to have some confirmation from someone familiar with the scholarship. — Fooloso4

The fact is that the scholarship is divided and so is general opinion on how Platonic texts are to be interpreted. Often more than one interpretation is possible, including such as involve well-known metaphysical concepts espoused by Plato.

I'm not denying your materialist interpretation, only your claim that your interpretation is the only possible or correct one.

Not being able to tag a label such as "materialist" or "idealist" upon a reading is to restrain from formulating a last word that is the product of a doctrine.

I'm not denying your materialist interpretation, — Apollodorus

That's nice. Except I don't have a materialist interpretation. If you read my thread on Socrates together with the passages I cite you would see that. Or, most likely not. You do seem to miss and misrepresent a lot of what I say.

... only your claim that your interpretation is the only possible or correct one. — Apollodorus

Only I have never made such a claim. I defend my interpretation by citing the dialogues. You have not done the same. I look forward you reading your interpretation of one of the dialogues. And by that I do not mean copy and paste from Wiki or elsewhere.

Another point worth mentioning. Euthyphro says this happened when they were farming in Naxos. (4c) Naxos was lost in the Peloponnesian War with Sparta in 404, five years before the time of the dialogue. Why did he wait for five years to bring charges against his father? — Fooloso4

According to some ancient authors Euthyphro is a fictitious character. Your objection may or may not be valid if there was evidence that he was a historical person. But there is none.

Once again, you are making a statement or suggesting a theory for which you are unable to provide evidence.

Not being able to tag a label such as "materialist" or "idealist" upon a reading is to restrain from formulating a last word that is the product of a doctrine. — Valentinus

This sentence doesn't make sense.

It does.

Not to me.

According to some ancient authors Euthyphro is a fictitious character. Your objection may or may not be valid if there was evidence that he was a historical person. But there is none. — Apollodorus

It does not matter if he is a real person. We are analyzing the dialogue, or at least some of us are. He is the title character of the dialogue. Socrates has him say something that tells the reader that this happened five years before he was going to prosecute.

I look forward you reading your interpretation of one of the dialogues. And by that I do not mean copy and paste from Wiki or elsewhere. — Fooloso4

I've already done so. And I provided scholarly opinion in support of my interpretation. But you refuse to acknowledge it and irrationally insists that only a materialist, anti-metaphysical, and anti-theistic interpretation is acceptable.

I've already done so. — Apollodorus

A proper interpretation is sufficiently detailed. A proper interpretation attends to the text, to what is said and done. Not isolated statements and repeating what others have. What you say does not even come close. But if that's good enough for you then that's good enough for you.

A proper interpretation is sufficiently detailed. A proper interpretation attends to the text, to what is said and done. Not isolated statements and repeating what others have. — Fooloso4

Hate to butt in, but he did that Fooloso4. You probably just missed it

Socrates has him say something that tells the reader that this happened five years before he was going to prosecute. — Fooloso4

Socrates? Do you forget that Socrates is just another character in the same narrative by Plato? It is Plato who has them say this or that, is it not?

And, anyway, this is supposed to prove what exactly?

Hate to butt in, buy he did that Fooloso4. You probably just missed it — frank

:up: Presumably he is far too busy carrying all those degrees he's got to pay attention to what is happening around him.

I will try it another way.

You claimed that Foolso4 was an outlier by eschewing labels such "idealist", "materialist" or what have you as adequate descriptors of the intent of the Platonic Dialogues. The reluctance to apply those labels is a well established method of current and recently past scholarship. The reason for that reluctance is that the body of work is not like Aristotle who did try to state what the best argument was as he saw it on each topic. When Aristotle could not determine what the best argument was, he said he was at an impasse. An aporia, if you will.

Breaking everything down into doctrines simplifies matters if the purpose is the taxonomy of writing a dictionary. But no one ever meets anything new by that method.

The reluctance to apply those labels is a well established method of current and recently past scholarship. — Valentinus

Nobody disputes that. But on an online discussion forum you often resort to labels for the sake of brevity. You can't compose an essay every time you state something.

Anyway, as already indicated, the issue seems to be that @Fooloso4 insists that the Euthyphro has no metaphysical content and he rejects all scholarly opinion to the contrary. Additionally, he often makes claims in support of his arguments without producing any evidence whatsoever.

You claimed that Foolso4 was an outlier by eschewing labels such "idealist", "materialist" or what have you as adequate descriptors of the intent of the Platonic Dialogues. The reluctance to apply those labels is a well established method of current and recently past scholarship. — Valentinus

Take a look at any recent scholarship that includes "Plato" and "idealism." There's no reluctance to identify Plato and his contemporaries as idealists.

Breaking everything down into doctrines simplifies matters if the purpose is the taxonomy of writing a dictionary. But no one ever meets anything new by that method. — Valentinus

I understand that. And at the end of the day, it is entirely appropriate to refer to Plato's outlook as a kind of idealism. This is not complicated.

Yes, you did not appear from nowhere.

I am all for disagreement for how to read a text. Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind. On the other hand, when you live with someone for a long time, the words remind one of other words.

The conversation changes.

But what is "idealism"? Is it a self evident quality or a way to distinguish it from something that it is not?

Anyway, as already indicated, the issue seems to be that Fooloso4 insists that the Euthyphro has no metaphysical content — Apollodorus

That is your judgment of what has been claimed, not a reference to the argument made.

But what is "idealism"? Is it a self evident quality or a way to distinguish it from something that it is not? — Valentinus

it's just a category.

If you throw your lot in with Fooloso4, then you'll assert that we should look to the life of Socrates to guide us in interpretation as opposed to Plato. You'll defend this view by noting that Plato doesn't speak in the dialogue.

You'll repeatedly assert that Socrates is failing to make his points instead of opening your mind to what Plato is saying.

And the list goes on.

There's nothing standard about any of this. Why are you defending him when you didn't read what he said?

it's just a category. — frank

That suggests that it is self evident. Such a notion is contrary to the proposal in the Republic that a special effort has to be made to see what things are as themselves. Our experience taken by itself without such an effort only shows us shadows thrown by a light behind us.

That suggests that it is self evident. — Valentinus

Categories are used specify. When I originally mentioned Plato's idealism, I was pointing out that when reading Phaedo, It might enhance understanding to contrast his view to that if Democritus, whose influence was also present.

Plato would have realized that his own idealism and the materialism of Democritus explain one another. In a sense, they create one another. This understanding is implied by one particular argument in Phaedo, which I'm sure you could pick out.

So as opposed to closing down exploration of Plato, noting his idealism is just the beginning.

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.

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 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.

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 — Olivier5

And I dare say it's the other way around. @Fooloso4 instrumentalizes Plato as a rhetorical weapon against them anti-materialists.

That is your judgment of what has been claimed, not a reference to the argument made. — Valentinus

If my judgement is "wrong", then let @Fooloso4 explain why he thinks so. This is precisely my point, he either offers no evidence or explanation for what he is claiming or provides justification that is either irrelevant or invalid.

Here are some of the things @Fooloso4 is stating or implying:

1. The Euthyphro is incapable of having a metaphysical message.

Evidence? None.

3. Euthyphro is not advanced in wisdom, therefore he should drop the case.

a. Evidence? None.

b. Is it (b1) just Euthyphro or (b2) all those not advanced in wisdom that should drop what they are doing?

3. The punishment for murder is death.

Wrong. It can be exile or fine.

4. Euthyphro says his father is guilty of murder.

What Euthyphro describes is unintentional manslaughter or accident. The court is likely to dismiss the case.

5. Euthyphro is guilty of patricide.

Evidence? None.

6. Euthyphro hates his father and wants him dead.

Evidence? None.

7. The crime took place five years prior to his conversation with Socrates.

Relevance? None.

8. L P Gerson, D Sedley, H J Krämer, W J Prior, F Fronterotta, Gerson Rabinowitz, and many other scholars, along with millions of Platonists all are ignoramuses who don’t know what they are talking about.

Evidence? None.

And this is just a sample.

Edit. Also, when challenged, he says he has the degrees to back up his claims and anyone that contradicts him should just shut up:

The simple fact of the matter is that I happen to know a great deal more about Plato than both of you put together. I have the degrees to back that up. I don't need a medal, I would however like you to [edit]. — Fooloso4

In your opinion, is that a valid argument or proof?

Plato was known for seemingly offhand comments regarding dates that situate the time of a dialogue and other events related to it.

There is quite a bit said in the literature about Naxos and the dialogue. Euthyphro indicates that they were no longer farming there. (4c)

There is quite a bit said in the literature about Naxos and the dialogue. Euthyphro indicates that they were no longer farming there. (4c) — Fooloso4

OK. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is the case.

Would it be possible to know how this is of relevance to the topic? I hope this is not too much to ask.

them anti-materialists. — Apollodorus

Do you define yourself as anti-materialist?

Reminds me of some blogger who defines herself as a "chocolate mint hater". I hate chocolate mint too, and have only scorn for materialism too, but I wouldn't define myself by what I dislike. I could say that I am a chocolate lover, reason for which I don't mix mint in my chocolate. Also I have a passion for the study of human reason and ideas, reason for which I stay away from reductionist ideas.