But Euthyphro is not defending social norms. One of the ironies of the dialogue is that Euthyphro's acting on what he is convinced he knows regarding what the gods want is destructive of social norms. Prosecuting your own father is contrary to social norms. — Fooloso4

This is what I said in the rest of the post you quoted:

Are such characters wise? They defend social norms, the status quo, the taboos, and as such, they ensure for themselves a measure of safety and wellbeing. So in that sense, they are wise. But on the other hand, social norms do not form a consistent, non-contradictory system, so anybody defending those norms is bound to run into a problem eventually, a problem that cannot be navigated without incurring damage to oneself or others. — baker

The emphasis in the Euthyphro is on being of service to the divine.

According to Plato, the inner self is divine.

The goal of philosophy is to make the soul godlike. — Apollodorus

Of course, such things are consistent with their pantheism.

But what I'm saying is that some of your formulations (e.g. "On a personal level, piety is being good to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence", "In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self") sound more like narcissistic self-aggrandizement rather than pantheism.

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.

This is relevant to the ongoing nature of this thread, the content of which is suffering, as per:

But what I'm saying is that some of your formulations (e.g. "On a personal level, piety is being good to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence", "In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self") sound more like narcissistic self-aggrandizement — baker

It is unfortunate but I think you have a point. Anyone following this thread closely will have noted a pattern of behaviour showing signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. Unfortunately, @Fooloso4 has been the main target. Anyone else showing support has been likewise treated with disdain. There is a tendency to belittle people so as to validate own sense of superiority. There are plenty of posts both here and on the other thread 'Plato's Phaedo' which, if they haven't been deleted by mods, provide evidence.
A consistent disregard of others' wishes and feelings combined with a need to control - not addressing the careful responses given with patience. And so on...
--------
Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555886

I showed my son this thread and he laughed at how your challengers don't actually respond to your comments as given. That is what is funny. — Valentinus

It actually isn't funny at all. But if your son can see it...then he is more astute than some. Well done.

--------

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

Yes. And still it goes on. With bells and whistles attached.

--------
From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555379

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... — Amity

--------

Mods. This needs to be addressed. Please reconsider the previous complaints and issues raised.

-------

Once a conversation is centered upon contempt for the participants, it reminds me of why I dropped out of high school.

Once a conversation is centered upon contempt for the participants, it reminds me of why I dropped out of high school. — Valentinus

Sorry to hear of your experience.
Unfortunately, such behaviour is not always obvious to those who should take action.
And people don't like to complain or give evidence because it seems so flimsy. Easy to dismiss.

At TPF, for a complaint to be taken seriously, it is necessary to contact the mods by PM including links to posts objected to.

This post will probably be deleted !
So it goes...

It's about language games. — frank


Care to elaborate? — creativesoul

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?

I think we actually do both in regard to money, we are continuously reinforcing the money language game by playing it?

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.

An internet troll is defined as someone who wants to disrupt the discussion rather than contribute to it.

Different techniques are used, one of which is to try and confuse others, to muddle the minds around and the discussion with nonsensical blah until no one remembers what they were discussing about anymore.

Right. This thread is about the Greek arguments concerning the origins of piety, goodness, and justice... isn't it?

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?"

This thread is about the Greek arguments concernng the origins of piety, goodness, and justice... isn't it? — creativesoul

That's what it's about indeed, least we forget.

That's been my focus.

Mine too, actually. I am not accusing you of being a troll, but others than you who muddled the discussion on this thread. I am actually agreeing with you that talk such as "god is everything" has no meaning.

This thread is about the Greek arguments concerning the origins of piety, goodness, and justice... isn't it? — creativesoul

I would not say it is about the origin of them but rather the problem of piety and how it relates the goodness and justice. What Socrates tries to get Euthyphro to see is that piety without regard to goodness and justice leads to impiety.

As @Olivier5 has said, the thread has unfortunately been muddled by a troll who cannot abide the fact that his belief in Platonism is not the focus of every discussion of Plato's dialogues.

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?

I have always understood the problem to be an issue for divine command theory — creativesoul

Divine command theory is an offshoot of the question posed by Socrates: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?" (10a)

Euthyphro says he does not understand the question. He cannot see passed his assumption that the pious is what he is doing. (5d) That he is doing is what the gods love. What he cannot say is how he knows what the gods love and thus that what he is doing is what they love, but he blindly believes he does know. Socrates introduces the idea that the pious is what is just. (11e )The question then becomes whether the pious is part of the just or the just part of the pious. Socrates' answer is just as odd is part of number, the pious is part of the just. The other part of number is the even. The other part of justice then is impiety. Socrates was found guilty of impiety.

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.

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?" — creativesoul

We could probably analyze all of Platonism in terms of language games, but the dilemma would be a start.

Doesn't sound like you're too interested in Plato meets Wittgenstein.

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.

The question I asked remains however. If God is everything, what sense does it make to talk about whether God invented anything at all? That was the point.

Socrates' answer introducing the just as the whole of piety and impiety seems to unnecessarily multiply entities. — creativesoul

Actually, it is the opposite. One less entity. Rather than doing what one imagines will please a god or gods, one strives to do what is just.

If God is everything, what sense does it make to talk about whether God invented anything at all? That was the point. — creativesoul

That is due to two or more levels of worldview and experience:

1. To the Platonists, God, Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness is everything. Philosophy of the monistic idealist type is what explains reality for them.

2. To ordinary people, God, the World, and man are totally separate realities. They rely on dualistic religion and mythology to understand the world.

The question I asked remains however. If God is everything, what sense does it make to talk about whether God invented anything at all? That was the point. — creativesoul

Yes. It appears you've rooted out the blasphemy. :up:

Okay.

:brow:

1. To the Platonists, God, Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness is everything. Philosophy of the monistic idealist type is what explains reality for them. — Apollodorus

Well, I'll have to take your word for what the Platonists believe. It does, from my vantage point, look a bit different from Plato. Regardless, when it pertains to monism, Spinoza's Ethics is the only account thereof that I've been fortunate enough to read that is coherent. However, it too assumes the existence of that which can conceive in and of itself(God). This seems too tangential to the OP though, so I've nothing further unless it can be showed as relevant. Even then, my interest in that is waning quickly, and I'll not want to be a part of distracting dialogue. I don't like it in my threads, so...

This seems too tangential to the OP though, — creativesoul

Platonism in general, perhaps. But surely not Plato's views in a discussion of a work by Plato.

For a proper understanding of the dialogue I think it is essential to take into consideration the author's own views as reflected in other writings and not impose an artificial and anachronistic interpretation on it. But, as I said, this is just my opinion.

For a proper understanding of the dialogue I think it is essential to take into consideration the author's own views as reflected in other writings... — Apollodorus

Other writing by Plato, or other writings by others interpreting Plato, or writings by others claiming to be based upon Plato?

'Platonists' who use notions like God, Ultimate Reality, or Universal Consciousness are like Plato in namesake only.

Other writing by Plato, or other writings by others interpreting Plato — creativesoul

1. I meant other writings by Plato as in other dialogues of his.

2. Plato did not write for himself, he wrote for his immediate disciples and wider audience including posterity, i.e., largely (though not exclusively) Greek Platonists. That's why he must be read in the cultural, religious, and political context of the time.

I see. That seems relevant to me. So, what other dialogues are relevant to the Euthyphro and how?