I don't think Plato puts that in there without reason. — Fooloso4

Not completely without reason; I believe he just chose a plausible location for his story. For the story to work, it had to be far away from Athens because a judge had to travel there, and had to arrive too late, after the criminal labourer had already died of his wounds.

I'll write another post about Luke, who indeed may not have been as good a Greek writer as Plato, but then, he had a better teacher of philosophy than Socrates.

I did not get a chance to read the posts that were deleted — Fooloso4

Basically, Amity and I complained to our beloved Euthyp... err... sorry, Apollodorus about his personal vendetta cluttering the thread, then Frank joked that we were cluttering the thread with our complains about cluttering, and then a mod came and deleted half a dozen posts.

Apparently they have no problem with overdrawn personal feuds.

The narrative is in the third person: “When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her … “ (John 4:7). — Apollodorus

I mentioned Luke, not John, and the good Samaritan parable, which I assumed everyone knew about. But that was evidently not the case.

For the edification of the ignorami among us, let me quote the entire parable.

With a little attention and luck, you will note that there is this character Jesus in there. The Jesus character is involved in a dialogue with another fellow, about what God wants from us, and he tells a story somewhat similar to the story of Euthyphro, involving a man beaten up and left to die by the roadside. So the parallels with Plato's dialogue are numerous.

But he [a pharisee], desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"

He said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Luke 10:29 and following

I did not get a chance to read the posts that were deleted, but it is certain that they were not substantive or on topic. As you said, it was a moderator who thought they should be deleted.
Unfortunately, you have become a target too — Fooloso4

Apparently they have no problem with overdrawn personal feuds. — Olivier5

Unfortunately, the misrepresentations and lies continue. Such blatant dishonesty:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555262

I will leave it stand. As an example.

My concern is that it will not stop - not particularly from the point of view of being a 'target' - but that any further threads concerning Plato's Dialogues will suffer the same fate.

I prefer now to read and consider any Dialogue in peace.
Hope that others continue in good spirit...

I mentioned Luke, not John, and the good Samaritan parable — Olivier5

As usual, you aren't paying attention. As I pointed out to @Frank, the narrative is in the third person and this applies to John, Luke, or any other Gospel text.

"In reply Jesus said ... " (Luke 10:30).

It's exactly like Plato writing, "Socrates said". No difference whatsoever. There is no need to bring the Bible into it and it is obviously off topic.

If you want to discuss the dialogue please do so — Fooloso4

That's exactly what we've been doing but you keep providing "evidence" that on closer examination turns up to be no such thing, take Ranasinghe, for example. I can understand @Amity’s exasperation but we are exasperated with your tactics too. It would seem more helpful to simply say "I have no evidence, it's just a working hypothesis" or something to that effect. Why can't you do that?

Anyway, the matter stands as follows:

Socrates believes that people should act piously or virtuously because this is good (a) for the soul (e.g. Crito) and (b) for the Gods or the divine (e.g. Euthyphro).

Socrates also believes (and Euthyphro agrees) that the pious is pious because it is loved (sanctioned/approved/commanded) by the Gods.

The only thing that remains to be established is what exactly is the pious (and why the Gods love or command it).

This may be a complex issue. However, it is evident from Plato’s dialogues that the telos of human life is to attain the highest degree of happiness. Happiness is attained by being pious, virtuous or righteous (dikaios), i.e., good and just.

There are several ways of knowing what is good and just:

1. Authoritative opinion (doxa) which may include religious beliefs.

2. Reason (episteme).

3. Innate sense of what is right and what is wrong which is an attribute of the soul which is divine (gnosis).

4. A combination of the above.

Euthyphro’s behavior can at the most show that religious belief (religion-based virtue) may lead to undesirable results when improperly understood and or applied. It doesn’t show that religion-based virtue in general is bad.

IMHO you have failed to demonstrate your case. If you think otherwise, feel free to show us how.

As I said, in Luke 10 the Jesus character is involved in a dialogue with another fellow, just like the character Socrates in Euthyphro. Both dialogues are about what pleases God(s), and they both include a story about a man beaten up and left to die by the roadside. Their message also overlap: what pleases God is justice, not formalistic piety.

Luke's good Samaritan passage also alludes to other things possibly not present in Plato's, such as a certain universality of the human race (the original question is: "who is my neighbour?").

God is justice, not formalistic piety. — Olivier5

Of course. That's why justice was divine as in Goddess Dike. I never disputed that.

I don't really care about what you disputed and what not. This is not about you.

It isn't about you either. You keep cluttering up the thread with irrelevant statements.

You are welcome to totally ignore me, sweetie pie.

For the story to work, it had to be far away from Athens because a judge had to travel there, and had to arrive too late, after the criminal labourer had already died of his wounds. — Olivier5

Yes, I agree. The question then is why did Euthyphro wait five years?

In other words same old shit. Be careful! Soon "Euthodorus" will include you in his personal vendetta.

It would seem more helpful to simply say "I have no evidence, it's just a working hypothesis" or something to that effect. Why can't you do that? — Apollodorus

You mean like this?

In this case I think Plato leads to reader to ask further questions about Euthyphro's intentions — Fooloso4

So why does he prosecute his father rather than appeal to the exegete to interpret? Euthyphro does, after all, claim it is a matter of purification and piety. Perhaps it has something to do with the exegetes being officially recognized authorities on such matters and Euthyphro being laughed at for his professed knowledge of the gods and piety. And perhaps it also has to do with the private activity of conferring with the exegete versus a public trial in which Euthyphro can display his knowledge of divine things. — Fooloso4

The question then is why did Euthyphro wait five years? — Fooloso4

We don't know that the text implies that. Plato may not have remembered the dates so well. Naxos could just be a place reasonably far away from Athens for the story to work.

Euthyphro’s behavior can at the most show that religious belief (religion-based virtue) may lead to undesirable results when improperly understood and or applied. It doesn’t show that religion-based virtue in general is bad.

IMHO you have failed to demonstrate your case. — Apollodorus

You cannot see past your defensiveness. I did not say that religion-based virtue in general is bad. I have said repeatedly that it is about Euthyphro, about what he intends to do in the name of piety. The problem is you are still hanging on to the idea that he did nothing wrong and that Socrates does not say he did anything wrong. It is not clear whether Euthyphro learned anything from Socrates, but it is clear that you have not.

The central question of the dialogue is about men not gods.What should guide Euthyphro’s actions, and how are we to judge Socrates’? Is piety simply a matter of doing what we are told a god or gods want from us, or is it part of the larger question of the just, noble, and good? . — Fooloso4

Socrates' education of Euthyphro begins when he points beyond Euthyphro's circular claim. He replaces the idea that what is loved by the gods is what is pious with the idea that the pious is what is just. (11e) — Fooloso4

It has nothing to do with religious belief (religion-based virtue) per se, but with piety without consideration of the just, noble, and good.I could go on quoting things you ignored, but all that matters to you is to continue trying to find something to argue against.

The problem is you are still hanging on to the idea that he did nothing wrong and that Socrates does not say he did anything wrong. It is not clear whether Euthyphro learned anything from Socrates, but it is clear that you have not. — Fooloso4

That's one way to interpret it. There are others.

It has nothing to do with religious belief (religion-based virtue) per se, but with piety without consideration of the just, noble, and good. — Fooloso4

That could be one layer of it. There are others.

Does anybody want to focus further on the dilemma?

Does anybody want to focus further on the dilemma? — frank

I for one see no point, to be honest. The OP says:

"To answer the question that engendered this post, belief in god is not necessary for being good."

@Fooloso4 has failed to prove his case on the basis of the dialogue. The discussion can only move in circles from this point and IMHO is a waste of time and space.

If all those who think the discussion is a waste of time could kindly walk their talk and leave this thread, perhaps the discussion would be less of a waste of time.

:up:

belief in god is not necessary for being good." — Apollodorus

True. And vice versa, it is easy to hide evil under the guise of religion.

The discussion can only move in circles from this point and IMHO is a waste of time and space. — Apollodorus

And yet you will continue to post. Please prove me wrong.

Does anybody want to focus further on the dilemma? — frank

Why don't you start a thread on it? It is not part of the dialogue, which is what this thread was intended to be focused on.

Fooloso4 has failed to prove his case on the basis of the dialogue. — Apollodorus

First, do not blame your failure to understand the dialogue on anything or anyone else.

Second, although the thread was engendered by Banno's request, it has been about the dialogue and not the thread that engendered it. I never intended for the discussion of the dialogue to be proof that belief in god is not necessary for being good. That question can easily be answered empirically.

I see. So can you state very briefly and as clearly as possible what the true point of the thread is?

Why don't you start a thread on it? It is not part of the dialogue, which is what this thread was intended to be focused on. — Fooloso4

The Euthyphro dilemma isn't in Euthyphro?

So can you state very briefly and as clearly as possible what the true point of the thread is? — Apollodorus

The true point of the thread is to discuss the dialogue.

The discussion can only move in circles from this point and IMHO is a waste of time and space.
— Apollodorus

And yet you will continue to post. Please prove me wrong. — Fooloso4

As I suspected, you have not proven me wrong.

As I suspected, you have not proven me wrong. — Fooloso4

As a forum member, I have the same rights as other members to post comments.

The true point of the thread is to discuss the dialogue. — Fooloso4

I was under the impression that you wanted to discuss the dialogue to show that "belief in God is not necessary for being good", as stated in the OP and which, incidentally, you have failed to demonstrate.

Anyway, who said you can't discuss the dialogue? My only objection was that you should provide some evidence to back up your statements as is customary in normal discussions. You demand evidence from others whilst producing none yourself, which I find rather odd for someone with lots of "degrees".

The Euthyphro dilemma isn't in Euthyphro? — frank

I think the matter is becoming more and more mysterious and I fear the answer can only be found in @Fooloso4's psychology. Could there be a reason why he calls himself a "fool"?