Comments

  • Euthyphro
    ↪frank


    Nah. I'm not as big a fan of Witty as many others are here. In general, I mean, I've read enough of the letters to Cambridge to see the man behind the philosophy. Also knowing that the overwhelming majority of his published writing was gathered, collected, and published posthumously. Certainly not a fan of Plato's 'dialogues'. They seemed more like monologues to me(the ones I've read).

    However, given the hstorical context, and what both had to work with at the time, they are both brilliant in their own ways.
  • Free Speech and Censorship
    I don’t use them as a means of convincing others. I use them as a means of expression, of creativity, to communicate my thoughts and to manifest my thinking. — NOS4A2

    Nah, Nos, you're full of shit.

    You claim words have no power. Then you use them because they do, in fact, have the power to...

    ...as a means of expression, of creativity, to communicate my thoughts and to manifest my thinking... — NOS4A2

    The ability to express is a power. The ability to communicate is, once again, a power. The ability to manifest thought is, yet again, a power...
  • Free Speech and Censorship
    There's currently a push in Florida which is basically attempting to survey potential students at universities as a means to acquire knowledge of their political stances/leanings. The claimed reasoning for this is to promote critical thinking and the questioning of assumptions in the guise of increasing diversity and well rounded considerations of ideologies. This push is being performed under the guise of free speech. It all sounds nice until we understand that it's not an attempt to broaden the critical thinking and inclusivity that it claims to be. Rather, it's an attempt to remove the discussions of certain kinds of political and philosophical thought such as communism, marxism, and democratic socialism from being considered with unbiased and/or positive discussion to being labeled as "stale ideologies". It is an attempt to not allow such political stances to be freely discussed on campus, and allowing only(presumably) their counterparts that privilege.

    To use the idea of promoting diversity and inclusiveness as a means to suppress discussions and expressions of dissenting and/or oppositional ideas/thoughts in order to promote more conservative(politically speaking) ideas and discussions is disgusting.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Fooloso4


    Ah. Forgive me for not having read the primary source, or for having forgotten if I have. I've nothing further, for Socrates' answer introducing the just as the whole of piety and impiety seems to unnecessarily multiply entities. Given the historical context and knowledge base of the time, it's understandable.

    Be well.
  • Free Speech and Censorship
    Censorship begins, in part, with the conferring of power to speech. One must fear the effects of speech to seek to regulate it, and to do this one must suppose the speech has enough power to cause effects in the first place.

    The problem is conferring power to speech is much like conferring power to kings; the only power they have is what society gives them.     — NOS4A2

    It's not the 'conferring' of power to speech that is the problem Nos. Speech has power. We all know this. That's why we use it. That's why you're here using it as well. As a means to convince others that speech has no power(if by that I mean the abillity to influence subsequent thought, belief, and behaviour). Your stance here is untenable. If you believed that speech has no power, then you would not be using it as a means to convince others that it has no power.



    It is simply untrue that words possess any power over that of man. After all, he is the creator of them. So we should work to dispel that myth, defang speech, remind people of their power over and above that of words and opinions, and free ourselves from our most deep-seeded superstitions. — NOS4A2

    It does not follow from the fact that man created something that that something does not have the ability to influence man's thought, belief, and behaviour. Your reasoning here contradicts your actions. I think it's called a performative contradiction...

    If you believe that words have no power, then what sense does it make for you to use them as a means for convincing others of that idea?
  • Euthyphro
    What Socrates tries to get Euthyphro to see is that piety without regard to goodness and justice leads to impiety. — Fooloso4

    Could you offer a succinct explanation of this? I have always understood the problem to be an issue for divine command theory(that what counts as pious, just, and good is either independent of the gods or is arbitrary). Have I misunderstood?
  • 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.
Home » creativesoul