Maybe I can take that. The end of Euthyphro is best understood as ironical, a tone frequently associated to Socrates. — Olivier5

Socrates' irony is an important aspect of the question of how to read Plato. There are, of course, different opinions about how Plato is to be read. Certainly the Euthyphro would be read differently if one assumes he is what he claims to be. Socrates quickly shows that he is not. His irony, as well as Plato's, is on full display here. After telling Socrates that he is laughed at for saying things about the divine things he is laughed at and thought mad, (3c) Socrates says:

Heracles! Surely the many, Euthyphro, are ignorant of what way is correct. For I don't suppose that it is the part of just anyone to do this correctly, but of one who is no doubt already advanced in wisdom.

Euthyphro: Far indeed, by Zeus, Socrates.(4b)

Euthyphro, being convinced of his advanced wisdom, that is to say, his divine wisdom since it is wisdom of divine things, is not at all concerned that he is doing something wrong. We are left to ask whether by the end Socrates succeeds in helping him gain enough self-knowledge to know that he is ignorant of such things.

Being ignorant of divine things Socrates shifts the focus from assumptions of what the gods love to considerations of justice.

... therefore that justice should not concern itself with piety. — Olivier5

I take it to be the other way round, piety should concern itself with justice. Claiming that doing this or that is doing what the gods love is insufficient.

But then, what is the metaphysical or moral message of that interpretation? Do all you can to cleanse yourself/your house/your city of impiety, even if you need to prosecute your own father? — Olivier5

This is what the Athenians did to Socrates. The sentenced him to death to cleanse their city of his influence. We know this had a profound effect on Plato.

But he would have known that the scapegoating that swept the city was coming from innocent superstition energized by the pain and dishonor of defeat.

There's no need to villainize Euthyphro. You can if you want to, but the dialogue works fine if Euthyphro just isn't thinking things through.

If he does, he may decide that justice does call for the prosecution of his father.

IDK — Olivier5

And that is priceless, right?

In economic terms, the monetary value of anything is a complex function of desire, utility and availability, — Olivier5

I wasn't talking about what you can buy for money. I'm talking about money itself. It's an abstraction just like piety. In fact in some ways, they play similar roles.

So what do you think? Do we love money because it's valuable? Or...

Likewise, Euthyphro being real or not is a meaningless detail which makes no difference whatsoever to the philosophical meaning of the story. — Olivier5

Exactly. That's why I said that the alleged "five-year gap" is a false lead and the logical thing to do is to focus on what Plato is trying to tell us.

God is unimpressed by empty, ritualistic piety, be that from the high priest, the levite or Euthyphro; He loves justice best, even when it comes from the impious. — Olivier5

Correct. However, what if Euthyphro is, after all, just? I don't think that is has been proven that he isn't.

Maybe Plato makes it deliberately ambiguous to get the reader to think it over and as he goes over the text again, what stands out are words like "idea", "form", "pattern", etc. that lead him to think that the real message lies elsewhere and that Euthyphro's "dilemma" was simply intended to stimulate and sharpen his thought in preparation for the true message.

After all, Plato and other philosophers did believe in several layers of meaning when interpreting the poets and myth-makers.

And he would have written a dialogue about it, right? Where this Euthyphro superstitious character would be a fool, unable to justify himself... — Olivier5

Yes. This line of discussion started with my saying that we don't have to see Euthyphro as a villain. I think you're agreeing that he might have just been superstitious with a little consciousness of his social standing in the mix. These two qualities would have made him pretty average.

A means to an end. And the real absolute end, for which piety is only a means, is proposed to be justice. — Olivier5

True. And how do we know about the ideal of justice?

I think the political dimension of Plato cannot be denied. — Olivier5

I completely agree, but I don't think the Republic is intended to be a model for an actual city.

So there is mutual influence between the souls of the citizens and the soul of the city. — Olivier5

And with this as well.

People cannot live without art. — Olivier5

He bans the poets not poetry. He is quite specific about the kinds of music would and would not be allowed.

Re. religion, is there ANY role for priests in the Republic? — Olivier5

Good question. There is one mention at 461a of a child being born without:

... the protection of the sacrifices and prayers which priestesses, priests, and the whole city offer at every marriage ...

There is no mention of which class they belong to or what their education is.

Obviously, a new metaphysical message is always a critique of the old one. — Olivier5

Not at all. When we grow up we may see childhood in a new light. That doesn't mean that we criticize or want to abolish it. The same happens with religion. Common folk keep their religion whilst the more evolved souls move on to a more metaphysical or spiritual worldview.

Which is why I think it is safe to see all of Plato's dialogue circling around the questions of not just what is right and just for the individual man, or for the gods, but also and most importantly what is just and right for the polis. — Olivier5

It may be argued that Plato's political system was largely implemented by Alexander and his followers, with Hellenistic religion at its foundations and philosophy at its apex. There is no evidence that Plato intended to abolish religion and it never was. IMO, the Euthyphro has a metaphysical message that materialists are unable and unwilling to see.

And you never heard about conflicts between parents and children about what to do and not do? — Olivier5

I have heard of personal conflicts between parents and children. I have not heard of class struggle between parents and children as two opposed classes aiming to abolish one another.

The dialogue is obviously intended to advise its reader, somehow. — Olivier5

That is exactly what I have been saying. Plato's dialogues are addressed to the reader, not to the characters in the dialogues. The materialists focus on Euthyphro's character in order to deflect attention from the fact that the dialogue may have a metaphysical message for the reader.

And I dare say this is exactly how "Apollodorus" uses platonism: as a mere rhetorical weapon against them materialists. He treats Plato's thought as a dead body, intrumentalized in defense of religion — Olivier5

And I dare say it's the other way around. @Fooloso4 instrumentalizes Plato as a rhetorical weapon against them anti-materialists.

That is your judgment of what has been claimed, not a reference to the argument made. — Valentinus

If my judgement is "wrong", then let @Fooloso4 explain why he thinks so. This is precisely my point, he either offers no evidence or explanation for what he is claiming or provides justification that is either irrelevant or invalid.

Here are some of the things @Fooloso4 is stating or implying:

1. The Euthyphro is incapable of having a metaphysical message.

Evidence? None.

3. Euthyphro is not advanced in wisdom, therefore he should drop the case.

a. Evidence? None.

b. Is it (b1) just Euthyphro or (b2) all those not advanced in wisdom that should drop what they are doing?

3. The punishment for murder is death.

Wrong. It can be exile or fine.

4. Euthyphro says his father is guilty of murder.

What Euthyphro describes is unintentional manslaughter or accident. The court is likely to dismiss the case.

5. Euthyphro is guilty of patricide.

Evidence? None.

6. Euthyphro hates his father and wants him dead.

Evidence? None.

7. The crime took place five years prior to his conversation with Socrates.

Relevance? None.

8. L P Gerson, D Sedley, H J Krämer, W J Prior, F Fronterotta, Gerson Rabinowitz, and many other scholars, along with millions of Platonists all are ignoramuses who don’t know what they are talking about.

Evidence? None.

And this is just a sample.

Edit. Also, when challenged, he says he has the degrees to back up his claims and anyone that contradicts him should just shut up:

The simple fact of the matter is that I happen to know a great deal more about Plato than both of you put together. I have the degrees to back that up. I don't need a medal, I would however like you to [edit]. — Fooloso4

In your opinion, is that a valid argument or proof?

Average, and therefore worthy of some scorn by the wise... But I think you are not picking up the clues Plato left about Euthyphro's venality and ruthless ambition. The text does not exclude ulterior motives for prosecuting his own father, and perhaps I agree with "Fooloso4" that the mention of Naxos implies some ulterior motive. — Olivier5

Sure. You just asked what the alternative interpretation is. That's it. Athenians were heavily into appearance, whatever we might think if that. It wasn't evil, it was just their culture.

how do we know about the ideal of justice? — frank


You tell me. — Olivier5

I think Plato is about to hatch some Forms which we know about from birth, but uncover through experience.

What would be the relevance of the Naxos reference? — Olivier5

I don't think it has anything to do specifically with Naxos other than it provides dates to indicate there was a five year gap between the time it happened and the time he was going to prosecute.

I have no definitive answer. There are a few things we can piece together. Euthyphro's father's defense of his negligence is that the servant was a murderer and:

it was no matter even if he should die.

(4d)

Euthyphro says that he died before the exigete arrived. According the the translators (Thomas and Grace West) the exigete is an official who expounded the sacred and ancestral laws of the city. His father regarded this as a matter of sacred rather than civil law. Euthyphro does not dispute this. 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.

What I gathered from my superficial reading on the subject is the conventional wisdom that Plato went through 'phases' or 'periods' like Picasso. — Olivier5

There are noticeable differences between the earlier and later dialogues, but the question of whether his thinking is marked by different periods is complex. For example, a later dialogue, Parmenides, is about Socrates as a young man. Parmenides is critical of the Forms. It remains an open question whether the Forms survive the attack, and if so, how they were altered. Theories of Plato's development based on theories of the chronology of when the dialogues were written should be considered in light of the dramatic chronology that Plato provides. In other words, if there was a change in his view of the Forms, the dramatic chronology suggests it is a change that informed Socratic philosophy from near the beginning of Socrates' own development.

in later dialogues he tended to be replaced by 'the stranger' ( — Olivier5

The stranger appears in some but not all the later dialogues. The question of who the stranger is is related to the question of who philosopher is. There is no dialogue "Philosopher", but the question is taken up in the Sophist and Statesman. The philosopher is in some ways like them, but in what way he is unique is never resolved.

Here is a nice summary: "The Real Name of the Stranger: The Meaning of Plato's Statesman"

https://voegelinview.com/real-name-stranger-meaning-platos-statesman/

In the dialogue we find Socrates, the Stranger, and "young Socrates".

It could be that the reports by Plato are inaccurate, or it could be that Socrates himself harboured some contradictions. — Olivier5

In the Second Letter Plato says:

"No writing of Plato exists or ever will exist, but those now said to be his are those of a Socrates become beautiful and new".

The dialogues are not reports. Plato distances the man Socrates from the person created in the dialogues. In addition, he distances himself from what is said in the dialogues.

Maybe I can take that. The end of Euthyphro is best understood as ironical, a tone frequently associated to Socrates. — Olivier5

When I first read the Euthyphro, I had already read the Republic and other dialogues, so I was familiar with the forms, etc.. But for some strange reason I never took the "aporia" as a big deal at all.

Obviously, Socrates was trying to convey a message, but I never felt that he was too concerned about Euthyphro taking his father to court. After all, the courts could have ruled that it had been involuntary manslaughter or even an accident that didn't warrant any serious punishment. Surely, the courts would have considered his age, absence of mens rea, etc, right?

So that didn't seem like a big deal to me either. He was just using Euthyphro's court case to make some other point. And as he mentioned "idea", "form", "pattern", etc., why not a metaphysical point that dawns on you when you realize that the dialogue doesn't really make much sense if you read it any other way?

When we are grown up, we have personally "abolished our own childhood" so your comparison doesn't work very well. I repeat: new metaphysics often compete with old metaphysics. — Olivier5

You were talking about the "polis" and now you are shifting to the "personal". "We" is plural and stands for society or polis. Childhood in society is not abolished. As some grow up, others are born.

There are no new metaphysics. Metaphysical realities like soul and forms are eternal. They don't compete, they are complementary, just as childhood in the polis exists simultaneously with adulthood.

Plus Socrates doesn't say that he wants to replace one metaphysics with another.

In fact, by his own admission, Socrates is not any more knowledgeable than Euthyphro and thus not qualified to tell him what to do.

If Socrates is (a) not qualified to advise Euthyphro and (b) does not advise him, then (c) it is wrong to say that the dialogue is intended to advise him.

The only thing that the dialogue can possibly advise is for the reader to pursue the question or questions by appealing to their own reason.

For the materialists, one question may be whether Euthyphro should take his father to court. Unfortunately, the dialogue provides no indication or clue that would be relevant to the decision process.

As for the anti-materialists, they may have no interest in Euthyphro or his father. They may read Plato to gain spiritual knowledge. Therefore, they may take another lead offered by Socrates, viz., that "piety is doing service to the divine" that dwells within the soul, and accordingly turn their attention to the forms that take them to the divine above.

The conclusion needs to be consistent (a) with the text of the dialogue and (b) with what we know about Socrates and Plato from other dialogues.

Do you define yourself as anti-materialist? — Olivier5

I don't define myself as anything for the purposes of this discussion. You guys are taking things too seriously just like you are taking Euthyphro's character too seriously and forget he is just a character that Plato uses to convey a message or set of messages.

Anyway, IMHO the facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The central question of the dialogue is “If x is pious, is it the case that [x is pious] obtains in virtue of [The gods love x], or is it the case that [The gods love x] obtains in virtue of [x is pious]?”

Evan’s Interpretation of the Explicit Euthyphro Argument may be of interest to those who profess an interest.

2. Another question is, in view of Plato’s well-known metaphysical ideas, does the Euthyphro have a metaphysical message?

The affirmative answer is given, among many others, by Gerson Rabinowitz, Platonic Piety: An Essay towards the Solution of an Enigma, Phronesis, Vol. 3, No. 2, (1958), pp. 108 -120.

You take Socrates' irony and false praise at first degree. That's quite foolish in my opinion. — Olivier5

You are making that up and that's quite foolish in my opinion.

I have said many times that Euthyphro is of no interest to me at all, I only want to know what metaphysical message Plato has for the reader:

Having said that, I don't read Plato to worry about this or that character. I read him to see if he, Plato, has got any metaphysical thoughts to share — Apollodorus

Plato's main concern was not to criticize religion but to convey a metaphysical message — Apollodorus

As for the anti-materialists, they may have no interest in Euthyphro or his father. They may read Plato to gain spiritual knowledge. — Apollodorus

If I wanted to read about social and cultural critique, there are many other authors to choose from.

But, apparently, you can't read other people's posts. That's why you are unaware that many scholars like Prof Gerson quoted above are of the view that the Euthyphro has a metaphysical message.

@Fooloso4 is just saying that Euthyphro plays the role of the fool in the dialogue — Olivier5

If that's what he is "just" saying, I have no problem with it.

But what he actually says is this:

but he does not show that what he is doing is something the gods love, unless the gods love patricide. — Fooloso4

The penalty for murder was death. — Fooloso4

etc. ....

His argument is this:

1. The penalty for murder is death.

2. If taken to court on charges of murder, Euthyphro's father will be sentenced to death.

3. By taking his father to court on charges of murder Euthyphro causes his death, therefore he is guilty of patricide.

But he has no evidence for either (1) or (2).

The conclusion (3) is wrong. His argument fails.

Or perhaps vice versa, given that "god" seems to function in this thread as a place-holder for our "best self" ....

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, — Olivier5

I think you're confusing yourself because you aren't following the thread and you don't understand that the discussion is about Ancient Greece, not France or Italy.

It is Euthyphro himself who equates “pious” (ὅσιον) with “loved by Gods” (φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν):

“Socrates:
Now what do you say about that which is pious (ὅσιον hosion), it is loved by the gods (φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν phileitai hypo theon), is it not, according to what you said? (10c – d).
Euthyphro:
Yes”
(10c – d).

Plato refers to “the Maker and Father of the universe (Poietes kai Pateras tou pantos)” and states that “this Cosmos is beautiful and its Constructor good”, etc. (Timaeus 28a – 29a).

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 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 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.

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.

the connections between politics and religion in Athens, 5th century BCE, — Olivier5

Greek religion, Athenian religion included, is closely related to social and political structures, i.e. to polis and its parts. Progress and welfare of the polis were identified with progress and wellbeing of its citizens and vice versa. To call somebody Fortunate/lucky/happy meant that the very person is favored by gods. In other words, religion was the frame of the structure and the functioning of the ancient Hellenic poleis.

Greek religion is connected to performing and fulfilling certain established rites and rituals that were believed to be in accordance with the will of gods and in avoiding those which were opposite to their will. Since the whole society could be punished due to the impiety of one person, polis controlled the religious rites and their fulfillment as well as their violation. Because of this potential threat provoked by a person, the punishments for impiety were very rigid, mostly death penalties. That is why, in political struggle and even in personal conflicts, people were often accused for religious violation, and if this violation was “proved to be true”, the accused was usually put to death, like in the case of Socrates. Proving religious violation and impiety was easier than proving state offence or offence in private lawsuits, because the jury in those cases had the same religious feelings, opposite to the political or personal favors towards the accused.
...
According to Martin Ostwald, in the years that Euripides’ Hiketides ​were put on stage (423 ​BCE), “oligarchic tendencies” entered the political stage of Athens and were especially favored amongst the young Athenian aristocrats. This coincides with the so called instable peace, i.e. the Peace of Nikias, during which, according to Thukydides, ​a new generation with new attitudes on life, religion and policy merged, a generation which grew up under the influence of the Sophists and Socrates as well.

To be continued...

It needed the one God if it was to remain one empire. — Olivier5

As you probably know the Council at Nicaea was convened because of a rift between Christian theologians regarding the divinity of Jesus. Under Constantine this was not just a theological matter it was political.

Origen had produced thousands of treatises and books. He had reviewed systematically all the gospels available at his time, including some now lost. For this and many other reasons, the burning of his work was a grievous loss. — Olivier5

On the one hand I think that without the efforts of the Church Fathers to unify the early Jesus movement into the universal Catholic Church, the future of Christianity might have been very different in various ways. This may have saved it from splintering. On the other, this does done at the cost of destroying what was part of the movement's very spirit, that is, the indwelling of spirit expressed through gospels of witness of inspiration.

And according to your interpretation, Plato would have agreed with his teacher Socrates' scapegoating. — Olivier5

Not at all. He just would have known that Socrates was the victim of superstition.

Unlike piety, money can be quantified, stored, stolen, changed, and exchanged against physical goods and services. I see it as a very practical thing and not an abstraction. — Olivier5

You're avoiding the question?

The solution of this seeming contradiction could be as simple as Plato putting words in Socrates' mouth. — Olivier5

The question is why Socrates? If this is Plato's images of the truth then why not put them in the mouth of a stranger? After all, a stranger plays a role in some of the dialogues that Socrates does in others. Putting them in Socrates' mouth seems to undermine the truth of the claims, making them simply opinions.

Another solution would be that Socrates, while doubting, had a sort of hunch that the good was beyond the gods and all that. — Olivier5

Socratic philosophy is oriented around the question of the good. It is what is sought for. This orientation is, however, necessarily a human orientation. That is, the question of the good is the question of the human good. Although we find in the dialogues metaphysical speculation, it is serious play not science. The activity itself, when done in the right way, is seen as good. It is inspirational and aspirational. It is eidetic.

Yep. I don't think the book of Job originated with the Jews, but the fact that the rabbis kept it in the canon shows that the insight Jesus demonstrates in regard to the Pharisees wasn't new.

In the Iliad, the Greeks are also shown taking actions meant to pacify the gods.

If you think of that as early science, we can translate Euthyphro as: does the universe follow higher laws? Or do the laws emerge from the nature of this universe?

Something like that.

Hence the kind of analytic theology you seem to rely on, is foly. God is not bound by human logic. — Olivier5

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

I think it is obvious that he is unable to establish his case by keeping within the Euthyphro context and is desperately trying to bring Abrahamic religions into it as if that is somehow going to "save" him. And then he is telling us that we shouldn't believe in miracles or religion....

In other words, Socrates is accused of being impious. His defense is that "pious" means everything and nothing, that it cannot be defined, that it helps justify the most unjust behaviors such as Euthyphro's, and therefore that justice should not concern itself with piety. — Olivier5

As I mentioned earlier, Athens has just lost a war. It was a demoralizing defeat, and we know with hindsight that Athens will never recover and return to what it was during Socrates' lifetime.

The fact that Socrates had apparently praised the Spartans in the midst of the war wasn't helpful, but we know Socrates was widely scorned and ridiculed earlier.

His lack of piety is being blamed for the Athenian defeat. That he taught people to question the basics is seen as a truly diseased way of being that has brought on catastrophe.

The Athenians can't just drop piety. They would have to let go of a worldview that's ancient to them and upheld by Solon.

The Athenians took Socrates to court for offending their Gods. So, it wasn't just Euthrypho, that's how people saw things in that particular time and place. There was nothing unusual about Euthyphro citing religion in support of his actions.

Plus, what were the chances of a conviction? Socrates himself would have been acquitted on condition that he did not re-offend.

Euthyphro is just a character, playing the role of the fool. — Olivier5

He seems like a constructed, composite character, a literary device.

I'm reminded of Polonius: "To thine own self be true" is what people often quote, in an ironic twist as the only thing they've remembered from "Hamlet".

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. I think wisdom would be to be able to behave in line with social norms, but in a way that never results in damage to oneself (and ideally, others), but I don't see how this is possible.