Don't you worry about me. I'm a master at spotting good masters.

Wild guess.

@Fooloso4 started an interesting thread and he presented his position clearly. He certainly taught little me about this dialogue. So he can be a teacher to me.

No problem, I took your post as such, and thanks for the info. I was just commenting that I liked her pugnacity, personally.

That may be our loss; she was a combative philosopher.

How dark is that? — counterpunch

Someone should start a thread on what is your darkest philosophical thought.

Yes,we make sense of things,that's human,not the province of book philosophy. — Mystic

Well, if your critique is aimed as academic philosophy, I share your doubts, but people do philosophy all the time in their lives. Even "academic philosophers generally suck" is a sort of philosophy.

But the "trouble" is not necessarily philosophical. It's just economics,karens and government interference. — Mystic

1. Everything is philosophical when you dig deep enough. Why did you chose Karens? Why are Karens seen as real bad right now in the US? What's the zeitgeist here?

2. There's also human tragedies of all kinds: disease, accidents, crimes. The list is long. People often try to make sense of what happens to them.

But there are those who have no trauma and no doubt and are fully confident. They don't need testing through doubt. Their confidence already expresses their trustworthiness.
They look upon philosophers as either neurotic or going through trauma. — Mystic

People who haven't been seriously tested yet should be grateful for that, and not look down on those who've been tested.

Life is some kinda test. Darwinian, economic or godly, pick an type of test you like best, but it's a kind of test. And rest assured that your turn will come. And you will cope with it the way you can.

Of course, there is something beautiful about innate grace. Most kids seem to have it originally, and then life chips at it progressively. The children who die young become angels. Those who survive become devils. (Mohamed Choukri - Bread Alone)

While some people live a rather protected life and can keep their innocence longer, generally being an adult means to be able to cope, more or less, with some amount of trouble, and that often takes away facile confidence.

It's when the going gets tough that the tough get going.

It says that piety can be used to justify any crime, even the most disgusting. And that is true.
— Olivier5

I've already addressed that — Apollodorus

Have you also considered the consequence of this fact, which is that we cannot rely on piety alone to justify anything. Piety is not a good enough standard to ensure that we act justly.

And sometimes, this self-confidence they have comes from having gone through a period of doubt, serious doubt, and having overcome it or survived it somehow. People who have never been through any period of self-doubt can't really know how much they should trust themselves. They just take it for granted and don't question it. They can still afford to be 'cocksure", they haven't been 'tested' yet. They are like little children who think they can conquer the world.

people's motivations come from an inferiority complex,thus the need to act out,to be needlessley proud and lie about our prowess. However,I have met folks that absolutely do not fit this observation. And those folks come from a place of confidence,not doubt and inferiority. — Mystic

Yes, and sometimes this self-confidence is well-placed.

Is self esteem a lack of philosophical reflection? — counterpunch

After much philosophical reflection, La Rochefoucauld concluded that self esteem is the reason why we do most of what we do. We want to feel proud of ourselves, so even when we think we are being generous and selfless, we still unconsciously look at ourselves in the mirror saying "ain't I look good?"

That is a rather sobering outlook on humankind, one that does NOT pump up our self esteem at all, and nobody is obliged to believe it, but I think it's a good "hypothesis zero": unless proven otherwise, people tend to like themselves more than they like others, and they are prone to lie to themselves about how good they are.

In this perspective, philosophy is but one of many acts of self-affirmation, an act of pride by the philosopher, which consists in reviewing the deepest assumptions and presupositions of "common sense" (or anything else passing for normative), and showing how they could be rephrased or reformulated better.

I had thought Olivier5 was making a joke with "Socrates himself didn't do such a great job at this task." — Banno

Of course. Most people today would think the Athenians wrong to prosecute Socrates for impiety, so nobody needs to defend Socrates against the charge of impiety today. He already won in the tribunal of history. And back then, Socrates himself didn't seem particularly interested in saving his neck by placating the pious.

The kind of people who uses pious rhetoric to justify killing their father.
— Olivier5

Yes, but that doesn't say anything about true piety and the truly pious. — Apollodorus

It says that piety can be used to justify any crime, even the most disgusting. And that is true.

I mean, he was indeed impious. The final chapter reads as: "unfortunately I'm still not convinced about this piety business".

and that he is simply chosing from the long list of crimes attributed to the gods one that will help him justify his shameful intention. — Olivier5

And thus the dialogue points to the hypocrisy of the kind of "pious" folks who can justify pretty much anything by reference to theology, mythology or scripture. The kind of people who uses pious rhetoric to justify killing their father.

the task at hand: defending Socrates against the charge of impiety. — Banno

This is a rather cold case, and one could argue that Socrates himself didn't do such a great job at this task.

Euthyphro's basic reasoning could be summarized as follows:

1. There are gods
2. The gods are just and always do and want just things
3. If I fear the gods, and do just things, the gods will love me (because 2) and help me
4. Zeus killed his father
5. Therefore killing one's father is pious and just.
6. therefore, from 3 and 5, I am justified in killing my father.

Socrates attacks 2 with some success: several gods sometimes want different things. Gods are not consistent in what they want. He also attacks 3 as transactional, and doubt that any real commerce can exist between the gods and us (see the Book of Job for a biblical parallel).

In the final chapter, he implies that all these arguments above are mere pretense, that Euthyphro wants to kill his father, a crime under any latitude, and that he is simply chosing from the long list of crimes attributed to the gods one that will help him justify his shameful intention.

"Zeus did it too!". With that kind of argument, one could rape quite a few virgins and still feel pious.

Fair enough. Point is, not all seemingly pious folks care much for what amounts to a pretty big challenge to civilization as we know it.

IOW, you don't know and you don't care. Après moi le déluge. Such an attitude is irresponsible and therefore unjust. According to papa Francesco, it is also impious.

Most of us though, have a pretty accurate conception of what constitutes right and wrong. — Apollodorus

So what is the right thing to do about global warming?

Well then, forgo theology. God couldn't care less, as in Job's final chapter He doesn't have to justify His acts to us. Our mental tools are only of and for this world. He made them, supposedly. Don't try and use these tools on Him.

It is one thing to believe them [gods] as a matter of faith, it is quite another to make them the foundation of logical arguments attempting to defend those beliefs. — Fooloso4

Yes, I could not agree more.

the pious", to hosion, in the neutral - meaning "that which is good and just". — Apollodorus

That's only pointing to more conceptual confusion. I think we can confidently conclude from human experience since Plato that not all pious person is just, and that not all just person is pious.

That's just one of the things that Fooloso4 fails to grasp and yet he is trying to teach us. — Apollodorus

But you do exactly the same. You too try to box gods into your own logic. You are forgetting that if god(s) created the world, then the logical rules that make you mind go bye were created by them gods, and put into your head by them gods. These rules are not made FOR them but BY them FOR US.

We might read this as merely symbolism, that the author is pointing to what happens in life, that we do not always get what we deserve. That righteousness is tested against adversity. But the story says more than that. God does not defend the idea that he is just. He has no defense against Job's accusations. — Fooloso4

He does not even register Job's concerns as worthy of His attention, 'cause where was Job when God built the world? That's the whole point. The creature cannot box her Creator into a transaction (I'll be pious, and you favor me). The Creator does not have to answer of His acts to His creature, ever, because they don't sit at the same level at all.

Hence the kind of analytic theology you seem to rely on, is foly. God is not bound by human logic.

The truth of the matter is Job is never fully restored. He endured terrible suffering. His children were killed. No happy ending, which some scholars think was a later addition, can fix that.

I agree the happy ending is proforma, like "they lived happily ever after". It's understood by the reader as such, as a mere decorative fig leaf for the nudity of God's unfathomability.

Brings to mind the book of Ahmadou Kourouma: ALLAH IS NOT OBLIGED TO BE FAIR ABOUT ALL THE THINGS HE DOES HERE ON EARTH. It's a book about a child soldier caught in the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia.

A similar thesis is exposed in Candide, e.g. in the Lisbon earthquake when the wicked profit from the calamities hitting the just. God is not obliged to be fair.

I suspect a simple conceptual confusion is at the root of this charade. It may be that the dialogue assumes as obvious what I shall call the transactional piety hypothesis, i.e. that the gods always love those who love them. But this is an hypothesis.

Not every God lover is necessarily beloved of God. You may love god(s) with all you heart and not be sure that god(s) love you back. Worse: it may be presumptuous of the creature to be so sure that God loves her. Maybe He doesn't care that much. Or maybe He doesn't find that your love is enough.

Therefore, I propose that pious means NOT "what or who pleases the gods", but instead: "what or who tries to please the gods". The gods' actual pleasure or displeasure is never to be taken for granted by mere creatures, but given what we think we know of the gods, we believe and hope that such and such actions will please them. That's what to be pious actually means.

The reasoning was that impiety, of the sort Socrates encouraged, was the reason the Athenian gods had abandoned them. — frank

Ok, makes sense. So the pious (he who loves the gods) is expecting that the gods will love him in return and hence favor him in this world. This implies that some people may be pious for a paycheck, so to speak. The pious often expects a reward for his piety.

There are many parallels to that kind of transactional reasoning in the Bible. Yahweh's covenant with His people, His unleashing hordes of gentiles on Israel because them Hebrews didn't deliver on their end of the deal, etc.

But interestingly, there are also other texts in the Bible that point to the opposite situation: the case of the pious abandoned by God. We all know that this happens all the time: the world is unjust; the pious may live a happy life, but often he doesn't...

The Book of Job is the most obvious example: it starts with Job being pious and Yahweh favoring him in return with a happy life and much riches, i.e. the "default" transactional situation. Then the sons of God present themselves to YHWH in some sort of gods council. Among them, is one called Satan. When YHWH boasts that his servant Job is the best pious human being ever, Satan replies:

9“Does Job fear God for nothing?” 10“Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

And so the book goes on with YHWH taking away all the riches and good things He originally granted Job as His side of the piety bargain: first his flock, then his children all die, then his health goes to rot. But Job still praises Y.

Then three of his friends tell him to revolt against Y and curse Him. That would be the logical thing to do in a transactional mode: YHWH failed to provide, so the pious can stop being pious. And indeed Job get finally a bit worked up and argumentative against YHWH, who is being unreasonably unjust, excessive in his neglect of His creatures, and for too long.

In the end, YHWH rebukes pretty much everybody by saying: I'm the boss here and I know best; you have no idea what My plans are so will you all shut up? Then Job is restored to health, riches and family, and lives to see his children to the fourth generation. Back to the default.

The message seems to be: if the gods let you down, be patient. They know what they do. Keep loving them. Don't expect any immediate favor or qui pro quo. Don't be so transactional. (But it's okay to get a bit pissed in the end.)

The world (cosmos) itself was created by God — Apollodorus

Or perhaps vice versa, given that "god" seems to function in this thread as a place-holder for our "best self", our moral sense, what we believe is our moral duty... You know the saying of Voltaire: God created man at his image, and man returned the favor in spades. You in particular seems quite free in defining god as you see fit.


Another point: I've been confused with the use of "pious" as meaning "beloved of God" in this thread. This is not the case in French or Italian, where it means "someone who fears and loves god(s)", i.e. the opposite of "beloved by the gods". There could be folks who are very pious but gods don't love them back, and there could be folks who are not pious at all but nevertheless loved and supported by the gods.

Socrates asks what part of justice the pious is. If we follow the example of number and odd, just as the other part of number is the even, the other part of justice would be impiety. Socrates’ pursuit of justice is in part impious, he questions what should be piously accepted as true. — Fooloso4

Thus pointing at situations where piety may be detrimental to being good. E.g. human sacrifices.

Socrates asks what part of justice the pious is. If we follow the example of number and odd, just as the other part of number is the even, the other part of justice would be impiety. Socrates’ pursuit of justice is in part impious, he questions what should be piously accepted as true. — Fooloso4

Thus pointing at situations where piety may be detrimental to being good. E.g. human sacrifices.

I am a great fan of the comparison between philosophers and plumbers, and have used it on TPF several times. One advantage is that it deflates philosophy from some heroic thinking act to a more prosaic but potentially more useful kind of work. So the comparison puts off people who do philosophy as a mere pretense, because pretending to be a plumber is not that gratifying...

Another advantage is that it helps combat concept fetishism. You can point at the concepts of philosophy as tools, as means to an end. So the next time some guy tells you that a given concept is illegitimate or inappropriate and that you really shouldn't use it, remember the plumber comparison. Only a very confused plumber would waste his time telling OTHER plumbers to NEVER use a wrench, because wrenches are "unclear". And if a plumber would try to cancel the wrench, other plumbers would just ask him: "what do you replace it with? Do you have something better to propose?"

Part of my series: Fake philosophers - how to spot them and avoid them.

If there are no absolutes in existence, then that statement is correct. — Merkwurdichliebe

But trivial... Science or the economy are not absolute either by this definition, and neither is the coffee that I'm drinking right now. If nothing is absolute, if all is relative, why care for the absolute? It says nothing to say: "morality is not absolute" when nothing is absolute.

It would be absolute if it existed independently and not in relation to other things. — Merkwurdichliebe

Everything exists in relation to other things, though.

that still doesn't make evil absolute — Merkwurdichliebe

What would it take for evil to be legitimately described as "absolute", in your opinion?

Youtube algorithms brought up those two guys. It's like inspired country music, or seriously deep folk music. Listening so far, not going into the lyrics yet.

http://projectbrassens.org/index.php — Amity

I found this translation of The Spanking, pretty mischievous:


The widow and the orphan, what could be more moving?
An old school friend of mine died leaving no children
But an amazing spouse behind.
I went to pay a visit to the desperate woman.
And then, having no plans for the evening,
I stayed to keep her company in the chapel.

To contain her tears, to solace her grief,
I started to tease, to crack some jokes,
All remedies are good for healing a soul…
Soon, thanks to the quality of some of my gags,
The widow was laughing till one’s side ache, thanks God !
We had quite of a good laugh.

My pipe was poking out of my jacket.
Pleasantly, she encouraged me : « Fill it up,
Let no moral imperative stop you,
If my poor husband hated tobacco,
Smoking does no longer bother him !
But where the heck did I put my cigarette box ? »

At midnight, with the sweet voice of a seraphim,
She asked me if I was hungry.
« Would it make him come back to life, she said,
If we stretched pity till starvation ?
What would you think of a frugal collation? »
And we had a small candle-light dinner.

« Look how beautiful he is !
Wouldn’t you say he’s sleeping ?
He would be the last one to blame me
If I sank my sorrow in a flow of champagne. »
After having emptied the second magnum,
The widow was quite flushed, I can tell you !
And her spirit started wandering around…

« My God, what will it be of us ! »
Sighted she, sitting on my lap.
And then, after having glued her lips on mine,
« Now I am finally reassured, she said, I feared
That under your saucisson-like mustache,
You'd be coquettishly hiding a harelip… »

My mustache like a saucisson, can you imagine ?
This comparison deserved a spank.
Rolling the insolent up with no sign of kindness,
Conscious of performing without a doubt a duty,
But closing my eyes to avoid seeing too much,
Smack! I lowered on her a vengeful hand.

« Ahi! you've cracked my bottom in two! »
Cried she, and I lowered my front, pitiful,
Worried that I had hit too harshly.
But I learnt later, and was quite relieved,
That this state of affairs had been there a long time :
Liar ! the crack was congenital.

When I raised my hand for the second time,
My spirit weakened, I lost faith,
Especially due to her inquiring, the Jezebel :
« Did you notice I had a nice ass ?»
And my vindictive hand fell back, vanquished
And the third blow was only a caress…

Most welcome, and thanks for La Jeanne which I didn't know. Brassens was one of a kind, a UFO from some lyrically anarchist planet.

After praying Mary, let's give his due to the lord of this world.

How many gods — Olivier5

All this to say that there is no evidence that the number of gods is equal to 1. Could be 2, 3, 4, a dozen, a million, or 0. There could be 3.75 gods for all we know. So the title of the thread should be "Belief in god(s) is necessary for being good."

This was certainly the opinion of many classical authors. One of the reasons for the hatred of Jews and later Christians in the Greek and Roman world was that they were seen as atheists. Why, they rejected so many gods and would not even show a representation of their own god. The gall! So these oriental atheists had to be bad people. They could not be trusted since they did not believe in the classical gods.

Similarly, for a modern Christian, a modern atheist who does not believe in the classical Christian concept of God may be seen as untrustworthy. But in actual fact, the atheist does believe in some version of the greater good, or progress, or simply remorse avoidance, something different from the Christian god but that nevertheless pulls him other towards being a better person even when he or she could get away from it.

Quiz: How many gods and goddesses are you able to identify on this Raffaello fresco?