This reminds me of something from Alice in Wonderland. Alice is told to either say what she means or mean what she says. She can't see the difference and is told that it like the difference between seeing what you eat and eating what you see.

Yes, similar. There's the added dimension of creating a language game vs playing one.

Do you not see how meaningless it is to say that what makes something loved is that it is loved? — Fooloso4

1. First of all, this is what Socrates is saying and, in the absence of additional information, it is all we have.

2. Why is it "meaningless"? Is the definition of "beloved" or "loved" not "loved person or thing"?

Otherwise put, in what sense may it be said that "the loved" is not "what is loved"???

First of all, this is what Socrates is saying and, in the absence of additional information, it is all we have. — Apollodorus

First of all, you need to read it in context. The paragraph from which you quote at 11a begins:

But if ...

He goes on to show why all that follows is problematic.

2. Why is it "meaningless"? Is the definition of "beloved" or "loved" not "loved person or thing"? — Apollodorus

No, the definition of loved is not that it is loved. The definition of 'dog' is not "it is a dog". The definition of 'obtuse' is not "it is obtuse". The definition of 'dim witted' is not "he is dim witted".

No, the definition of loved is not that it is loved. — Fooloso4

I think "loved" or "beloved" is "person or thing that is loved":

Noun beloved (plural beloveds) 1. Someone who is loved; something that is loved.

beloved – Wiktionary

Are the dictionaries wrong?

Loved is not a person or thing that is loved. The meaning of 'loved' is not defined by saying something is loved. Beloved can be defined as something that is loved but love cannot be defined by loved.

Do you really not know this?

Do you not realize that you are being dishonest here, or at least that what you’ve posted could seem like dishonesty?
The salient word is “loved”, and you introduce “beloved” as an equal term and then lo and behold you post the dictionary definition of “beloved” as if that in any way supported what you are saying about “loved”. Do you know what I mean? You muscled in a dictionary definition that suits your argument. Why didnt you post the dictionary definition of “loved”? I googled it after I read your post…it really wouldnt help your case would it? So you ignored it and instead found a word that would.
Thats a sneaky, dishonest way to engage with someone, and I’m wondering if its so sneaky you din’t even know you're doing it.

Edited for clarity

I think "loved" or "beloved" is "person or thing that is loved":

Noun beloved (plural beloveds) 1. Someone who is loved; something that is loved.

beloved – Wiktionary

Are you a lexicographer?

Do you think the dictionaries are wrong?

If yes, then feel free to get in touch with Wiktionary and explain to them that you intend to introduce a new definition.

In the meantime, I reserve the right to go by what the dictionaries are saying, not by your unexamined opinion.

I am left wondering whether you truly are incapable of understanding or if it is just a pretense to save face or whatever tatters are left of an argument.

The salient word is “loved”, and you introduce “beloved” as an equal term — DingoJones

Well, @Fooloso4 didn't complain, did he? He said:

Beloved can be defined as something that is loved but love cannot be defined by loved. — Fooloso4

I'm talking about "loved" or "beloved" as in "person or thing loved by the Gods".

Edit. @Fooloso4 agrees with me that "beloved can be defined as something that is loved", see above.

His objection is that "love cannot be defined by loved", which is totally irrelevant IMHO.

Again, I am left wondering whether you truly are incapable of understanding or if it is just a pretense to save face or whatever tatters are left of an argument.

Either way, I'm done.

Whether or not he complained is not relevant to whether or not you were being dishonest.
Do you recognize that what you did is dishonest? Or at least recognize that it could come across that way? Please answer that question, it is direct and simple.

Do you recognize that what you did is dishonest? — DingoJones

It is difficult to distinguish between dishonesty or ineptitude. I suspect it is some combination of the one to cover up the other.

I find it fascinating that someones mind can just slip past something like that, and Im compelled to inquire so I can understand better when my own mind might be doing something like that. Its kind of terrifying to me honestly, he doesnt seem to realize he is doing it. I dislike the idea of not knowing my own mind in that way.

How on earth is it "dishonest"???

Socrates’ question is, “Is that which is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? (10a).

The Greek phrase is φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν, phileitai hypo ton theon. Which means “loved by the Gods” or “beloved of the Gods” where “loved” = “beloved”.

Are you well? Or are you just a relative of @Fooloso4?

Ok, so when you swap out “loved” for “beloved”, thats the dishonest part.
Why would you do that except that the dictionary definition of “beloved” suits your argument where the dictionary definition of “loved” does not? It seems you are doing it because your argument doesn't work with the definition of “loved” so you just used a different word that does help your argument…you pretend that “loved” and “beloved” are interchangeable when you know very well they have different dictionary definitions. That is a deception, dishonesty.
If it isn’t dishonesty then please share your reason for using the dictionary definition of “beloved” instead of “loved”, since “loved” is the word being discussed.

The dishonesty is entirely yours. Though, quite possibly, you aren't aware of it.

In relation to the passages under discussion, there is no difference whatsoever between "loved" and "beloved".

@Fooloso4 himself agreed that "beloved is defined as something that is loved".

Beloved can be defined as something that is loved — Fooloso4

"Beloved" is the word used by translators for phileitai hypo ton theon:

"But that which is dear to the gods is dear to them and beloved by them because they love it" (10d).

Plato. Platonis Opera, ed. John Burnet. Oxford University Press.

Feel free to contact the translators and lexicographers and suggest alternative definitions or wording. I am sure they will be more than delighted to hear from you and Fooloso4 :grin:

Fooloso4 himself agreed that "beloved is defined as something that is loved". — Apollodorus

That does not mean the terms are interchangeable. The beloved is the object of love. You can't just turn it around. Love is not the object of the beloved.

In any case, you are avoiding the issues raised. You take Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro as an endorsement. That you are unable to see that is either ineptitude or willed blindness, or maybe some combination.

Love is not the object of the beloved. — Fooloso4

I never said it was.

You take Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro as an endorsement. — Fooloso4

Of course not. I'm taking a statement by Socrates as a starting point for a constructive interpretation of the text. By contrast, you are using mere imagination and baseless speculation admixed with falsehoods and fake definitions.

Socrates’ question is, “Is that which is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? (10a). — Apollodorus

If what counts as good, just, and pious counts as such because it is loved by the gods, then all things loved by the gods are good, just, and pious merely as a result of being loved by the gods, and nothing is good, just, and pious unless or until it's loved by the gods. In this particular scenario, humans either have no direct access to the gods and thus cannot know what is good, just, and pious, or they somehow have access to the gods in order to be able to know what they love, and by doing so also know what's good, just, and pious.

That's one logical possibility, and it ends in the good, just, and pious being arbitrary(at the whim of the gods) and unknowable to humans as a result of humans not having knowledge of gods' whims/preferences, and/or some human(s) claiming to know the minds, whims, and preferences of the gods.



If the good, just, and pious is loved by the gods because that which is loved is already good, just, and pious, then there must be a criterion - independent of merely being loved by the god as in the example above - by which the gods compare/contrast things to the criterion in order to see if they count as being good, just, and pious. In this scenario, should the gods find that something satisfies that criterion, then the gods love it as a result. Should something or other fail to satisfy that criterion, then the gods do not love it. If this particular scenario is true, then what counts as being good, just, and pious exists in it's entirety completely independent of the gods approval because the approval comes as a result of meeting the criterion for what counts as being good, just, and pious.

This logical possibility drives an insurmountable wedge between what's good, just, and pious and the gods by negating the idea that divinity/gods is equivalent to the good, just, and pious.

So, either the good, just, and pious is completely arbitrary(at the whim of the gods) or there is a standard for being good, just, and pious that exists independently of the gods.

Neither is acceptable(to the believer anyway). I personally find the latter to be the case.

BTW, thanks for pointing out that "loved" and "beloved" are synonyms. It looks like the dictionary now agrees with you. I don't know how you managed to persuade them to change their definition, but well done.

loved (comparative more loved, superlative most loved) 1. Being the object of love
Synonyms See Thesaurus: beloved

loved – Wiktionary

The dishonesty is entirely yours. Though, quite possibly, you aren't aware of it. — Apollodorus

In what way am I being dishonest? If I am mistaken in my view that you are being dishonest then thats a mistake not dishonesty. (Though if you are confused by that distinction it becomes easier to understand why you can’t sense your own dishonesty.)
Anyway, what did I do that was dishonest?

In relation to the passages under discussion, there is no difference whatsoever between "loved" and "beloved". — Apollodorus

Yes there is a difference, if you use the dictionary definition of “loved” it doesnt in any way support your argument. Exactly why you chose to smuggle in a new word, “beloved”, which does support your argument.
Why didnt you quote the dictionary definition of “loved” instead of “beloved” if there is no difference whatsoever?.

BTW, thanks for pointing out that "loved" and "beloved" are synonyms. It looks like the dictionary now agrees with you. I don't know how you managed to persuade them to change their definition, but well done.

loved (comparative more loved, superlative most loved) 1. Being the object of love
Synonyms See Thesaurus: beloved

loved – Wiktionary — Apollodorus

Oops, you forgot to include the whole definition. You are referencing the adjective use, I the verb. So that distinction seems to have caused a miscommunication.
If you look at the quotation for the definition of “loved” as an adjective it references its use in psych/self help books. Is that the way you intend on using the term here? As used in the psych/self help sense of the words?

If what counts as good, just, and pious counts as such because it is loved by the gods, then all things loved by the gods are good, just, and pious merely as a result of being loved by the gods, and nothing is good, just, and pious unless or until it's loved by the gods. — creativesoul

That would appear to be the logical implication. However, as already stated, I believe that it is necessary to go by what Socrates says as there is nothing else to go by. I suppose we could make up our own story, but in that case we would need to ignore the dialogue and start another thread.

In this particular scenario, humans either have no direct access to the gods and thus cannot know what is good, just, and pious, or they somehow have access to the gods in order to be able to know what they love, and by doing so also know what's good, just, and pious. — creativesoul

That's exactly what the dialogue does not say, hence the difficulty. However, if (a) we take the Gods (literally, all the Gods) to refer to the Divine (to theion) in a general or abstract sense, and if (b) we admit that the human soul is divine, then (c) knowing what is good amounts to the divine knowing what is divine.

In those cases where humans do not know or know only in part, it is because their innate divine knowledge is insufficiently awakened.

I suppose we could make up our own story — Apollodorus

That would appear to be the logical implication. — Apollodorus

The text is ancient. The logical implications are what interested me. If we use the text as though it is infallible, we arrive where they did... nowhere. I personally think that we are well equipped to do much better.

I personally think that we are well equipped to do much better. — creativesoul

I disagree. We're just good at adhering to our own worldview.

It's about language games.

We're just good at adhering to our own worldview. — frank

Some of us, perhaps. For my part, I built a worldview around things that I knew were true, and/or had warrant to believe. Disparate, at first, this worldview... but becoming more and more coherent as I go. Dependable and true as well, if lack of surprise is any indication.

:wink: