/lit/ - Literature

In the Euthyphro, Socrates asks, "Is the holy approved by the gods because it's holy, or is it holy because it's approved?". To qualify this, he goes on a multi-page analogy about things being carried and things getting carried, which culminates in the idea that Holy =/= Divinely Approved because they do not share the same affirmative relationship in being and getting. However, at the very end of his argument he mentions it's still a mediocre definition because it only describes an aspect of holiness and not what holiness actually is, leading into the idea that the gods aren't actually omnipotent and opening a theological debate.

My point is: I saw a ton of stuff online about that last sentence, but almost nothing about the being/getting relationship. Why do people ignore it? Do they just not choose to question Plato here? It seems like an argument so grounded in language that it's pointless to try extracting real meaning from it, but Plato acts like it's central to his argument. What the fuck is up with that? Am I just reading the wrong secondary material? Is this common in Plato scholarship? Does it happen in other notable instances?

>this has six replies
>my thread still at zero
get on it you fucks

>he reads books digitally