Comments

  • Euthyphro
    ↪Olivier5


    That's been my focus.
  • Euthyphro
    Yes, so the dilemma could be interpreted this way: did the gods invent the language game associated with piety, or are they just playing it? — frank

    How would that work if we also hold that "God is everything?"
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Olivier5


    Right. This thread is about the Greek arguments concerning the origins of piety, goodness, and justice... isn't it?
  • Free Speech and Censorship
    immerse a crucifix in a vat of his own urine and name it Piss Christ — Todd Martin

    Interesting example... last I checked, Warhol's exhibit had been banned for exactly that piece. In Cincinnati anyway. Not exactly impugnity, but not exactly banned either...
  • Euthyphro
    Leads to utter nonsense, meaningless language use, equivocation fallacies, and inevitable self-contradiction and/or outright incoherence.
    — creativesoul

    In other words, it leads to typical troll behavior.     — Olivier5

    I have no reason to believe that "God is everything" leads to typical troll behaviour. I cannot find any way of making sense of "God is everything", at least not if "God" refers to some supernatural entity.
  • Error Correction
    ↪Cheshire


    Question could lead to an interesting thread...

    Rather than discuss which 'philosophical position' we've changed our minds and/or belief about, it's far more fruitful to discuss which particular beliefs, and it's even more interesting to discuss changes in deeply held beliefs, you know, those accompanied by nearly unshakable convictions along with those which formed a basis for a large plurality of subsequently formed and/or held beliefs.

    Is that too much to ask for?
  • Socratic Philosophy
    Agrippa's trilemma argument:

    1. All arguments are one of the following:
    a) Infinite regress: each premise requires an argument and the premises of the argument requires another ad infinitum.
    b) Circular: The conclusion appears in the premises.
    c) Axiomatic: We accept sans justification the truth of the premises.
    2. None of a), b), or c) are acceptable
    Ergo,
    3. Sound arguments don't exist     — TheMadFool

    Hey Mad!

    Interesting post that the above was included within. I've a question though regarding what's quoted above. What reasons are there for believing 2., and how can we do that much without rendering the entire line of thinking as untenable, and/or self-defeating? In addition, how does 3 follow from 1 and 2?
  • Socratic Philosophy
    Socrates’ human wisdom ignorance is grounded in his knowledge belief in God... — Fooloso4

    Corrections were necessary...
  • Free Speech and Censorship
    When deliberately spreading known falsehood becomes the catalyst for newly formed beliefs that lead people who believe the lies to violent insurrection of the government, such as Jan. 6, and those complicit in such spread are current elected official of the government, and the government is one such as the US has, then there is more than adequate reason for punishment and/or removal of such elected officials for reasons ranging from treason against the United States to defrauding the American people to inciting a riot to a failed insurrection attempt.

    Free speech is crucial for fostering a well informed electorate, but it has proven to also be pivotal in creating the conditions for a large portion of the population to be deliberately mislead about several keystones of the American system... free and fair elections, easy access to exercise voting rights, and the peaceful transition of power.

    Jan. 6, and the circumstances surrounding it, is not good reason to silence free speech. It is more than adequate reason to punish those who've defrauded the American electorate by convincing so many to believe known lies and falsehoods to the extent that they believed it was necessary to stop the peaceful transfer of power by any means.

    The free speech of such leaders perhaps ought not be looked at as good reason to silence dissent, but rather as a prima facie example of what domestic enemies of America look like and punish them accordingly, even given that they were/are elected officials. They were, and have continued to be complicit in an erosion of trust in the government that has it's only precedent in how blacks, minorities, and recently poor whites view the government. The latter was and remains well founded belief. The former(Jan. 6) was ginned up by the likes of Trump and all those who did not act to remove him and/or fight against him during the time he was promoting all the distrust while taking actions to impede the success of the last election simultaneuosly.
  • Euthyphro
    Because that's how language works...
  • Euthyphro
    God is Satan. God is good. God is bad. God is evil. God is...
  • Euthyphro
    God is everything. — frank

    There ya go.

    Leads to utter nonsense, meaningless language use, equivocation fallacies, and inevitable self-contradiction and/or outright incoherence.
  • Euthyphro
    I need not adhere to any worldview that's prominent in my lifetime. Bits and pieces of lots of them, sure...
    — creativesoul

    I think you probably have to.     — frank

    If you mean that I probably have to adhere to bits and pieces in order to interact(currently, as an adult). Sure. If you mean that my initial worldview(mostly adopted as they all are) adhered to prominent ones amongst my family, friends, and acquaintances while developing that initial worldview, sure.

    But altogether adherance is only necessary if one lives in a small pond with limited worldviews.
  • Euthyphro
    The One is divine. The Soul is an emanation from the One. — frank

    So then the human soul is not the divine.
  • Euthyphro
    I have no idea what you're trying to say here. — frank

    The One
    The human soul
    The divine
    All the gods
    The Divine

    Are these different entities or different names for the same entity?
  • Euthyphro
    Surely you adhere to the worldview that's prominent during your lifetime. You have to in order to interact with others. — frank

    First, there is more than one. Second, I can interact with someone with a different worldview. Third, I can understand a completely different worldview and not agree with it.

    So, no I need not adhere to any worldview that's prominent in my lifetime. Bits and pieces of lots of them, sure...

    Truth is a relation between what's believed about what's happened and/or is happening and what's happened and/or is happening. I would not agree that "truth is relative".
  • Euthyphro
    Multiplying entities... only for those entities to be different names for the same entity has it's own set of problems. Occam's razor.

    As far as monism goes in light of this discussion...

    One finger cannot point at itself. Distinction requires a plurality of things, as compared/contrasted to a plurality of different names for the same thing.
  • Euthyphro
    The human soul is all the gods.
    — creativesoul

    The Soul us rooted in the Divine.     — frank

    Two different claims.
  • Euthyphro
    ...see if the dialogue has a range of meanings from the literal to the moral to the metaphysical. — Apollodorus

    Well, Plato used the terms sensibly, and if he did so without equivocation, then pursuing a range of different meanings would be to say stuff that Plato did not. So, I would be hesitant to do anything aside from examine Plato's use/sense given what we can know about the historical context.
  • Euthyphro
    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. — Apollodorus

    The human soul is all the gods.

    That follows, you know?
  • Euthyphro
    It's about language games. — frank

    Care to elaborate?
  • Euthyphro
    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:
  • Euthyphro
    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.
  • Euthyphro
    I suppose we could make up our own story — Apollodorus
  • How Do We Think About the Bible From a Philosophical Point of View?
    The Bible is a collection of stories written by men long ago as a means for explaining things that were in need of explanation. Since then the stories have been used for all sorts of different things.

    Philosophically, I personally want to know if the stories are true. In order to know that, we must first know what makes a story so. True stories are accurate accounts/reports of what's happened or is happening.

    The creation story in the Bible is not an accurate account of how the world/universe came into existence. I've come to that belief as a result of knowing that our current knowledge base leads to conclusions that the world and universe are much older than what the stories in the Bible claim.

    The notion of sin in the Bible is incredulous as a result of God punishing Adam and Eve for doing wrong before they even knew the difference between right and wrong.

    The notion of God being the source of morality(doing what's good) is incredulous as a result of knowing that what so so much of what God commands throughout the Bible is not good.

    The notion of God being a loving God is incredulous as a result of his creating a place of suffering for all of eternity as a place to put his disobedient children. Not my idea of how to treat someone you love. Seems a bit abusive to me.

    The notion of Mary, mother of Jesus, being impregnated without being asked for permission... well...

    Surely you get the point here. Philosophically speaking, the Bible is bereft, to put it mildly. I could go on and on, but need not.
  • Euthyphro
    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.
  • Euthyphro
    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.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    As before. Not interested. Congratulations. You win. Argument by defnitional fiat. Gods are good. Gods love good things. Gods love themselves. Perfect reasoning.
  • Euthyphro
    Socrates believes (and Euthyphro agrees) that the pious/good/just is pious/good/just because it is loved (sanctioned/approved/commanded) by the Gods. — Apollodorus

    bolding above mine

    So, piety, goodness, and justice somehow exist, in their entirety, independently of the gods...

    :brow:

    ... which is the problem for divine command theorists, and it is also a problem for anyone who holds belief that god(s) created everything.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    The problem with your particular line of thinking is that it results in the following...

    The gods love themselves.

    The question/problem is - of course - do the gods love something because it has the attributes of goodness, justness, and divinity or iare such things just, good, and divine because the gods love them.

    Your answer was that gods loved things that are just, good, and divine.

    So, either those properties exist in and of themselves independently of the gods, or the gods love themselves.

    Not an acceptable answer to me. Results may vary.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    Not interested. Revisit the argument/objection given. It's still an insurmountable problem. Believe what you like.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    Argument by defnitional fiat. Fantastic. Gods love themselves. You win.
  • Euthyphro
    If the attributes/properties of just, good, and divine are divine, then they are part of the divine. — Apollodorus

    That doesn't fix the problem...

    If those attributes are independent of the gods
    Reveal
    (as they must be if the gods love things as a result of those things possessing those attributes)
    , but those attributes are part of the divine or are the divine, then the divine is independent of the gods...
  • Euthyphro
    ...the pious is that which is loved by the Gods because it is good, just and divine. — Apollodorus

    Clearly then...

    The attributes/properties of being just, good, and divine are independent of being loved by the gods, which is an insurmountable problem for any position that believes in creator god(s) repsonsible for creating everything as well as the problems faced by divine command theory.
  • Philosophical Plumbing — Mary Midgley
    The problem is that philosophy is not a monolith; so it might not be all that easy to decide who is "degrading" it. — Janus

    Poorly worded on my part. I meant only to note that many many politicians will degrade a position by calling it "philosophical' or 'in theory' or words to that effect/affect.
  • Philosophical Plumbing — Mary Midgley
    ...you can't force philosophy on people. — Janus

    Nor need we force anything on anyone...

    Governmental policy is all about what ought and/or ought not be done. Politics is all about government. All political positions on the role of government are inherently philosophical. Thus, whenever a politician(or anyone really for that matter) openly degrades philosophy, they ought very well be taken to task.

    What can be done is provide the American public with an accurate timeline of events showing which policies resulted in unwanted consequences for Americans overall, and which politicians voted for those policies, as a means to produce a well informed electorate.
  • Philosophical Plumbing — Mary Midgley
    Sure, that's an idea, an ideal, but I don't think it reflects the reality... — Janus


    Hence, the need for philosophical style approaches to the matter...


    ... people simply have whatever influence they have acquired via their social relations. If they are acting within the law, then who's going to take their power and influence, whatever it's level might be, away from them?

    That's another question altogether.

    However, if the issues of not caring about those over whom an individual wields such power are clearly presented as such and supported by what's actually happened, is happening, or what the individual wants to happen, then in a democratic form of government, the citizens remove those people from power by virtue of voting against them or voting for people who will remove such people from power, should they not be elected officials, but some other private individual offering a public good or service in the American marketplace.

    Of course, free and fair elections are totally dependent upon a well informed electorate, and that seems to be a major problem nowadays.
  • Philosophical Plumbing — Mary Midgley
    Seems to me that the social contract is something that arose on it's own, through reasoned reflection upon the causal role that individuals have in a society. It is the acknowledgment of one's own power to effect/affect others. Individual behaviour has demonstrable and often predictable effects/affects upon others. It is in light of that that either the individual ought care about those whose lives and/or livelihoods they effect/affect, or such an individual ought not have such power.

    I'm being reminded of Thomas Paine here: Power over people is acquired in but one of two ways. It is either usurped or it is granted by consent.

    The social contract seems to me to have everything to do with that kind of power.
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    Are you going around again? — Banno

    Nah. I asked, and later clarified what I was asking for. An argument meeting that criterion has not yet been put forth. So, I've not much else to say regarding that...
  • Belief in god is necessary for being good.
    Bart has fallen back to ad homs — Banno

    Yeah, that seems to be the go to response just before being drectly faced with a problem in the reasoning. There's probably not much left to discuss on that matter.

    Euthyphro poses yet another problem for divine command notions, of which Bartricks seems to be arguing along such llines of persuasion....
Home » creativesoul