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

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.

It seems to me that the reality is that the world's largest nation is going to be a dominant player on the world stage. That said, there are threats to the stability of China which may reduce it's influence. — Foghorn

There may be some internal tensions within China that the West may be able to exploit to its own advantage - depending on the political will to do so. But a dictatorship like China can deal with domestic tension as long as it can keep some of the population on its side and chances are the Communist Party can do this for the foreseeable future.

The way I see it, the West, especially the European Union, has been constantly expanding from a Western European Union to the south and east of the Continent. Further economic and political expansion is planned (a) southward into North Africa and the Middle East (see the Union for the Mediterranean) and (b) eastward into Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and (ultimately) Russia.

This is driving Russia into the arms of China, which puts China in a very strong position on the geostrategic chessboard. It was of course the West that brought China to its current position of regional power by building up its economy, in the first place. The West's pressure on Russia is good for China but bad for Russia and bad for the West. If things carry on like this, it's a win-win situation for China and lose-lose for the West. Somehow, I don't see Biden or Angela Merkel cracking this nut.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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"???

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

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.

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?

The oppression and injustice does require people to make a stand but dangers of political conflict, and nuclear threats make the conflicts even more ominous. It all feels like such a dangerous juggling act. — Jack Cummins

The thing is that China's leadership is flexing its military and economic muscles whilst also pursuing an unusually aggressive foreign policy. Although the leaders call themselves communists, the system is really communist-controlled state capitalism and under the current leader it has become a form of national socialism with militaristic and expansionist ambitions.

What is encouraging the regime at the moment is that it has identified a low point in the Western world's economies that it seeks to exploit as much as possible. The West's frictions with Putin have also driven Russia closer to China which places China in an unprecedented position of power internationally.

The West could take action, for example, by limiting China's access to international credit and investment but the political will for that isn't there yet. China realizes the danger and aims to further strengthen its position economically and militarily while it can. It seems difficult in the current climate to see how conflict can be avoided. But a policy of appeasement that allows China to become even stronger is not a realistic solution IMO.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

The war on terrorism involved America having control of the Middle East, and I believe that we are now moving into the possibility of power over China. Of course, it is easy to see oppression in other nations, but I think that an underlying aspect behind the scenes of politics, and manufactured news, is the fight for oil, which is running out rapidly. — Jack Cummins

I agree that resources like oil are important. But imagine the ramifications of oil fields falling into the hands of religious fanatics or madmen like Islamic State. The results would be as catastrophic as world war. The same would happen if China acquired control of Middle Eastern oil production as well as infiltrating and taking over western economies, etc. I think in any conflict it would seem wiser to side with your own people than with the enemy.

I also know people born in China and some of them can be pretty defensive when you raise any problems with the regime. All people have a sense of national pride and criticism of the regime isn't something people are used to in China, quite apart from the fact that they probably have relatives back home, so they need to be careful what they say. Or criticism of the government may be mistaken for racism, etc. I think the issue tends to be a bit more complex than is generally realized. This makes it all the more difficult to form a clear picture.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

But, I am not really sure, because I don't always know where to get reliable news, as I am sure that there is so much going on behind the scenes of news headlines and stories. — Jack Cummins

True. But in a free society you should be able to get reliable news, like you do from the US or Europe. The fact that you can't get reliable news from China may already be a sign that there is something wrong.

"Officially, China is a unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under the leadership of the CCP" - Wikipedia

So, I suppose we could start with the fact that China is a dictatorship where no political parties are allowed except the ruling Communist Party and where ethnic and religious minorities are often suppressed:

Chinese Christians Held in Secretive Brainwashing Camps – Radio Free Asia

China’s persecution of Christians intensified in 2020 – Christian Reporter

The Vatican Remains Silent On The Persecution Of Christians In China – CRISIS Magazine

Tibet: Behind the façade – Free Tibet

It may be that not all of it is true, but it may equally be that it's actually worse. A dictatorship knows how to divide and suppress opposition and it has the means to do it. How else do you reckon the same party has been in power since 1949?

As they say, there is no smoke without fire. If thousands of people in Hong Kong are risking their lives demonstrating against Chinese interference, then it seems safe to assume that it is even worse on the mainland.

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”.

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.

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.

Well, it has to be admitted that, the Chinese communists have rescued many millions from an ancient rural life which so many willingly abandoned. — Foghorn

Unfortunately, millions were "rescued" by being starved to death when Mao insisted on putting Marxist intellectuals with no experience or knowledge of agriculture in charge of the countryside. Same happened under Stalin and others.

But, yes, I think we should enjoy suburbia while it lasts. Unless something drastic happens, there isn't much we can do to stop urbanization anyway.

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.

Yes, imho, the biggest under reported story of the 20th century is the urbanization of humanity. More and more people are being born in to life almost completely cut off from nature. — Foghorn

Correct. Reminds me of Marx and Engels who in their Communist Manifesto wrote that:

"The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued
a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Of course, for Marx and Engels that was exactly what they wanted, the total transformation of the countryside into cities because that was where the revolutionary working class, organized in "workers' battalions", and employed in immense state-owned industrial complexes, would be housed.

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)

I have a bit of a warped view on this, as I live in Florida, where the population has grown 7X during my lifetime. The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. More people = more problems. I'm a woods hermit, it just ain't for me. — Foghorn

I can see your point. Overpopulation in urban areas is going to be a big problem everywhere as everyone wants to live in megacities where the jobs and the nightlife are. There is a big shift from countryside to city, from south to north and from east to west across the globe.

Turkey is spreading in Europe, North Africa, and the Mid East, and teaming up with Iran, Pakistan, China, and North Korea. There is a new power bloc emerging that is changing the world order beyond recognition. I think next few decades is going to be interesting.

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:

One guy on NPR suggested America should have the goal of having a population of a billion people by century's end, just for this reason. — Foghorn

If you put North America and South America together, you get pretty close. It may not be a nice thought but what else do you suggest?

With the rise of China and other great powers, the old international order is falling apart and the world is reverting to the law of the jungle. Big fish eat small fish. You can avoid being eaten only by being bigger than the other guy.

This emphasis on oneself I don't see in the passage you quote above. — baker

You said it seems "awfully modern, self-helpy"

Can you provide some reference for this? Because it seems to be an awfully modern, self-helpy idea. — baker

I'm saying you can find it in Plato, Plotinus and many others. Nothing "modern, self-helpy" about it at all.

The emphasis in the Euthyphro is on being of service to the divine.

According to Plato, the inner self is divine.

The goal of philosophy is to make the soul godlike.

Who or what "ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as it can and become like God, so far as this is possible?"

Obviously, the soul or self.

This is a very interesting website that apparently sells "Boycott China" t-shirts, face masks, and other stuff.

boycottchinanow.com

Does anyone know anything about them or others?

They have some at cafepress as well.

And Amazon.

I think the main point of philosophy is to look behind appearances and assumptions about reality. An important aspect of this is metaphysics, especially ontology and the study of the relationship between mind and matter. But another interesting aspect is ethics and looking into how philosophy justifies religious and political beliefs and how philosophical theories can apply to political theory as a means to create a better society.