Its a depressing trait of the human condition.

Not everything is as it seems, but thank you.

Again, the same could be said of any discovery anyone makes. They are finding something no one else did, thats the nature of a discovery not philosophy.
What happened to you? Did a rabid band of philosophers kill your parents or something? Did you just come to this forum to slam the great philosophers? Thats fine if you did, thats what everyone else does here just without forsaking philosophy altogether.
I don’t think the points you’ve made so far have done much to show your claims about philosophy are true, but by making those claims and asking questions you are playing the part of Socrates perfectly.
Thats philosophy and Im sorry to be the one to break this to you but you are doing philosophy, you are in fact a philosopher.

Im not sure what criteria you are using in that assessment but cannot agree. That simply hasnt been my experience.

Arrogant fools are abundant whatever kind of person you are talking about.

Its both me AND the philosophy. :wink:
If my comment seemed fair to you then maybe your problem is less with philosophy and more with the philosophers themselves when they make appeals to philosophical authority? Beginners in philosophy are often snarky and arrogant about the new tools and ideas they are given through philosophy for example.
That happens, and it is indeed obnoxious but I wouldnt say representative of all philosophy.

But which philosopher has attained truth then? Especially when many are diametrically opposed. — Mystic

Well I wouldn’t say there is one philosopher who gets it all right, but from Decartes to Harris I’ve learned not just things which I think are true but useful methods for thinking as well.
If two philosophers have diametrically opposed views, one or both are wrong. Just like with anything else.

Tell me practically,give me some ethical and philosophical truths you heve gleaned during your critical journey? — Mystic

Like I said Decartes “I think therefore I am”. Thats true. Utilitarianism is a decent ethical system and learning about where it is weak helped form my own ethical framework. Being exposed to ethical philosophy in general has helped form my own ethical framework. Ethical dilemmas like the Trolley Problem challenge peoples pre-conceived notions of ethics and morality and test them.
Ive come to conclusions about ethics, meaning, religion, spirituality, society and people through philosophy. Most of it is of practical value in my life.

The truth of something requires no agreement. Whether or not someone agrees something is true has no bearing on whether or not its actually true.
If you want to learn about ethics philosophy is one source for that. For really deep ethical questions I would say its the best source.
Likewise with critical thinking, yes it is something that everyone possesses or makes use of on some level but if you want to learn about critical thinking you should read some philosophy, or do some philosophy.

If the truth is reliable and valid then one should accept it. I don’t know anyone who uses doubt as a foundation. Doubt is more of a tool in philosophy, part of a method.
I agree there is some wishy washy pointless philosophy that appeals to a certain kind of intellectual sado-masochistic philosopher type bit painting with that broad brush means you miss out in the good things about philosophy, like ethics and critical thinking.

Even if I were to concede that those particular philosophers lacked humility that wouldnt mean all of philosophy lacks humility. There are scientists who lack humility do you think science lack humility because if them?

Certainly philosophy has aspects of what you are talking about, when the discussions go in circles or the topics are endlessly rehashed. Thats a fair criticism in my view, but Im not sure what that has to do with self esteem.
What I would defend is the process of asking questions and what sing doubt as a method to figuring out the answers to those questions. Its healthy to question ones positions and views, especially the ones we hold on the frontiers of knowledge or that we hold most dear.

:100:

I like the way you put that, no quality control. The worst ideas are equally valid.
“Faith” is also used as an expression to say one has reasonable confidence in something and that gets mixed together in theist counter argument.

The other problem with faith is that the single suspension of reason weakens the persons defences against other bad ideas. Once you convince someone fantasy is real its easier to convince them other fantasies are real as well. I had a friend who grew up religious and believed strongly in god and when the internet conspiracy theories started getting stronger I had to watch him succumb to each one until he thought the earth was flat and no longer believed in space. His father was a pastor, he had been trained his whole life to swallow those conspiracy theories. Thats why rather than the simple illogic of faith that might make it a sort of quaint banality like astrology I think faith is an evil for exactly that attack it makes on the faithfuls faculties of reason.
And while Im ranting you wanna know what else drives me nuts? The way the faithful try and disassociate with the other faithful, like the suicide bomber or the zealot who beats each of his kids and himself for original sin are not using the exact same reason. When you choose to indulge yourself with “faith” you are choosing to grant equal footing to all faith based acts. If the defence of your belief is the same as the defence of the belief women should be slaves or someone should drag their kid up a mountain to sacrifice to god then your defence of your belief is garbage. The bar for believing in things has to be higher than that.

End rant.

What is faith though? Faith when given as a reason for believing in something is an empty placeholder for an actual reason. If the person actually had a reason they would just state that reason but they don’t so they say “faith”.
Also, to say something is not a matter of logic or imperial investigation is to admit it is firmly in the realm of fantasy. If someone said they believed in square circles on ”faith” that clear breach of logic puts the notion into fantasy. Things have to make sense, otherwise no one knows what they are talking about and neither do they. It is by definition nonsense.

Well it depends on how you define philosopher but the humility of which I speak is a person accepting they do not know and then trying to figure it out (humility) as opposed to a person who thinks they already know and then trying to figure out how to support that conclusion. (Opposite of humility).

I think you are confusing low self esteem with humility. Doubting oneself and ones perspective is good philosophy, a necessary part of looking at things from different points of view which is essential to philosophy.

An intuition with which I might sometimes agree; I'm not convinced that "...is good" works a predicate, at least not in the way "...is round" does. But there is much work to be done here, too. — Banno

The “all” is important too, “all good” implies only one pathway to good and a single conclusion at the end of that pathway. I think there are many good ways to get to the good and more than one good to be gotten to in each instance. (Good in the moral sense).

SO you would say the argument is valid, but relies on a false premise - that there is a god - and so is not cogent. — Banno

False premise (god), a problematic phrasing (“all good”)and it gets circular if “ought” is a reference to what is good. There is morevI think but those are the main cogency lacking factors imo.

Id call it internally consistent, but not a very good argument based on its premises. I don’t think being “all good” is coherent for example, I have never heard a satisfying explanation of what that would even mean.
Also it starts with the acceptance that a god exists, which I do not accept.
So not cogent I’d say, in that any argument that relies on such baseless premises is not very close convincing.

I think the idea is that omniscience grants certain knowledge, thus a certainty of what is good and this is what merges good and god in the way Janus mentioned. I don’t really buy into any “omni” based arguments myself. Theoretical concepts at best, hardly the basis from which to draw conclusions about anything.

Ok, thats fair enough.
The point raised with Fool was that I already know the 101 understanding of it that the video shows.
I think if you want to explore a classic like this you have to come at it differently, otherwise its not exploring its just repeating it.
So when I asked about the term I was attempting to start a discussion wherein we go after the “essence” that cannot be expounded in a paragraph. I just prefer to get parameters good and clear first so we don’t waste our time discussing something with different understandings of the words most important to that discussion. Watching the video isnt going to do that, starting a dialogue does so thats what I tried to do.

But the thing about Plato's dialogues is that it is not about providing answers to simple questions. As Banno noted the dialogue ends in aporia. Most of them do. — Fooloso4

I Understand that, I have read the dialogues. The Socratic method is about the questions and what they reveal.
Im assuming that you and banno who understand Euthyohro would posit it for a deeper purpose than to just reiterate what you already understand about it. I was just trying to establish what that purpose might be, if there was something being specifically sought in this revisit to a classic.

Then watch. Or read the texts provided and question. — Banno

Those are options yes, but not as expedient as just having the simple questions answered.

Sorry i had gone back and edited that post. I accidentally hit the post button.

Im trying to understand what other people mean by those words, they weren’t words I used so why would I seek to offer my own meaning of the words?
I can discuss it once its clear to me, and perhaps offer my own thoughts to n meaning then.
I understand you are being a teacher guy and getting me to think on my own as part of that but that approach does nothing for me. I just find it frustrating/obnoxious, and I mention that only to illuminate not to be snide or flip.
I already think deeply about things, I’m asking about those words to establish a baseline for a potentially interesting discussion. I promise I’m not trying to be a dick, I just am explaining myself in hopes of reaching a better understanding with you since I’ve had difficulty discussing things with you in the past and I would always want to smooth out those difficulties.

Could you elaborate what is meant by “piety”? Piety to what?
Are we just talking about ones dedication to justice and relating that to god being definitive of justice means piety to god is piety to justice?

What are we discussing? Anything specific or just the Euthyophro story? What is the point if this thread (not intended as snide, honest question)

It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to catch fish as efficiently as possible then A), but if the goal was to take up a new hobby or to relax then B) might make more sense.

So working together is a dogma that needs to die?

By “bipartisan” do you mean working together?

Lol, I know it can be entertaining. Guilty of it myself at times. It’s just going to take forever for him to go away if each of us play with him. :lol:

Click ignore dude, you’re wasting your time trying to discuss anything with Bartricks. Check his post history, he isn’t capable of having a discussion please ignore him so he will go away.

This is a philosophy discussion forum. Read with precision.

I asked you about the conman, not about the religious conman, as the issue was the contrast between a person's thought expression and their behavior. I said nothing about the religious conman. — baker

Well we had been discussing this in a religious context. You were using it in examples and referencing. Then You said this:

“It's not clear that in the case of the religious not living up to what they profess this is really due to cognitive dissonance. You'd need to rule out deliberate duplicity. Religion's bloody history warrants such scrutiny.“

So then I posted a direct response:

I wouldn’t rule out either as an explanation. There are many reasons. Also Cognitive dissonance is observable, primarily through the contrast between a persons thought expression and their behaviour.
That’s a lot clearer than the basis of your view which is based on your own rigid definition of belief. You entitled to that rigid definition but I see no compelling reason to adopt it myself. — DingoJones

To which you responded with:

So you think that a conman "has" cognitive dissonance? — baker

Which is is either in the context of religion as the rest of our discussion or a non-sequitur.

Also, this response doesn’t address any point I raised. You ignored those and instead raised a new question of questionable relevance and then acted as though I was being imprecise in my reading. This has a stink of dishonesty to it, you don’t seem to be arguing in good faith here.
I’m not going to wander around aimlessly with you, answer my comments properly or we’re done here.

If there was an ultimate objective good and evil and you could measure it enough to know if she me one would qualify as the most good or bad then you would also be able to measure it at any point along the scale as well.
I’m sorry to say I don’t think your formalization of the dilemma is coherent. You start off with objective morality as part of your premise and then include the subjective morality of the “center” as part of your problem but if there is objective morality then we could just go by that, no subjective quagmire.

It’s my own fault for reading his painful exchanges. A momentary lapse I feel better now.

I think he just means he doesn’t want to talk to you anymore because you’re an obnoxious douchebag. I could be wrong but it follows from how much of an obnoxious douchebag you are. :roll:

“ Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”

-Hitchens.

One of my favourite quotes of his.

No, the religious conman is real. I’m not disagreeing that there are religious conmen, no question. I just don’t agree that the average religious person is a conman. Who are they conning, themselves?
The average religious person has a cognitive dissonance though, I might even go so far as to say that belief in a religion is impossible without one. After all if you follow any one edict in the bible and not follow some other edict then you aren’t really making sense and since the contradictions of the bible make it impossible to follow them all you can’t really religious without making one or more breaches of logic and rationality.

You and your damned reasonableness. Would you please stop it!!!

I've been in quite a few exchanges like this one, both as a participant and a bystander. In those situations, censorship by bullying is a common tactic. Moderators sometimes are part of that, although others certainly participate too. When a moderator does it it can be a lot more intimidating. — T Clark

I can’t help it lol
To me that’s just part of the battle of ideas. Don’t let people bully you into silence.

The general argument concerning free speech of course has nothing to do with the argument concerning moderation on any particular forum any more than an argument for free food choices obliges an Italian restaurant to serve hamburgers. And yet posters consistently conflate these debates. There’s no inconsistency whatsoever between supporting free speech and running a moderated forum. — Baden

To me it just depends on the rules of the forum. Free speech isn’t always conducive to good philosophical discussion and good discussion is the highest priority here. That’s why we’re here.

It isn't necessary for valid speech to be actively censored in order for it to be attacked. Threats, intimidation, insults, dismissal, and bullying can be effectively used to get you to just shut up. Cases in point: — T Clark

Ya, that’s the “consequences” of free speech that isn’t protected. A nice little sidestep the woke brigade uses to maintain the illusion of moral high ground.

It is noteworthy that these quotes are all from moderators. — T Clark

I still think your anger is clouding things for you. Baden made excellent points in that exchange you had.

You misunderstand. If someone thinks “wokeness” is the “right” view as implied by other views being the views of “dicks” then that person is dangerously self righteous.
Like this:
People who disagree with woke ideology are terrible humans, dicks. Not only should we look down on them but we shouldn’t listen to them either, and we shouldn’t let other people listen to them so let’s make sure they suffer as a consequence of their free speech, hopefully job loss but for sure canceling an event other people wanted to have. You know what? Let’s just call him a racist, or a Nazi, then we scarcely have to justify anything we do any more. We are fighting evil racist nazis after all. Then let’s scour the texting history of everyone we don’t like to see if we can find something we can cancel them over. While we are it, let’s make sure we frame everything in the most severe way possible so that anyone who isn’t woke is a monster...let’s make insults a form of violence...hmmm, not enough let’s make it so it’s violence if you just don’t like what you hear. Perfect. Just remember, only a racist or bigot or nazi doesn’t share our view and rejects our social engineering and language control.

Thats what woke is about. That’s textbook behaviour of the biggest dicks in history. The self righteousness is in the act of viewing “woke” as a moral high ground over other views. That’s the direct implication of saying opposing views to wokeness are the views of dicks.

You can not be woke and still not be a dick and there are plenty of woke dicks out there so no woke isn’t just not being a dick. It’s as often the opposite of not being a dick as any other person with any other view is a dick...pretty often.

What does “wokeness” even mean? Is it just “not being a dick”? — Michael

No, it’s more about the kind of people who are so self righteous they can only view people with different views to be “dicks”.