/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14138066]

>Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

When Euthyphro claims the gods love things because they are pious, then Socrates counters that this means piety is not the same as 'things that all the gods love'. 'Things that all the gods love' are a category of things, and the category is defined by the fact that gods love the things within this category. Piety, on the other hand, is a quality of things, and the quality of piety causes gods to love the thing that holds the quality. On this basis the two cannot be equivalent.

My question is, why didn't Euthyphro just claim that piety was also a category? Why didn't he say that a thing is 'pious because it is loved by the gods'?

[Anonymous No.14138079]

but this supposes something higher than a god, a metaphysical category that tells the gods to think something is pious or not. It's a contradiction to call them a god then. This is why Platonism doesn't lead to atheism, it leads to christianity, because the only way to resolve this is to say that god makes the categories, and therefore god makes everything, is omnipotent.

[Anonymous No.14138092]

>>14138079
no it doesn't, i am suggesting that 'piety' is a human category. a word that humans can apply to 'things that are loved by the gods' to group them together under one banner.

[Anonymous No.14138162]

>>14138079
why would gods be subordinate to a linguistic category? why would the proposition that a god cant be restricted in its choices by a higher law debunk atheism anyway? why would the idea that god is fully transcendant and monotheistic mean that you should believe that he then had a son called Christ?? you seriously need to reconsider your whole belief system because it is clearly absolutely incoherent.

[Anonymous No.14138217]

>>14138162
It's more of a "well here's how his philosophy fits into my belief system" kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.14138273]

Because in polytheisum opposing actions or things car both be pious.

[Anonymous No.14138290]

>>14138273
at this point in the dialogue the definition has already shifted to 'things that ALL the gods love' - if piety is only the things unanimously loved by ALL the gods then the problem of different gods favouring different things is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.14138332]

>>14138066
Your first sentence isn't a sentence.

[Anonymous No.14138344]

>>14138332
It's a quotation.

[Anonymous No.14138345]

>>14138066
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with this, and categories seems like a completely different way of thinking from either Socrates or Euthyphro. Perhaps you could expand it a bit.

[Anonymous No.14138352]

>>14138344
Yes it's the dilemma. I mean your sentence.

[Anonymous No.14138396]

>>14138345
Socrates asks if the gods love what is pious because it is pious, or if things are pious because the gods love them.
So pious things are loved by the gods because:
a) they are pious (in which case piety is a quality of things that are pious, and the gods love things which have this quality)
-OR-
b) they are loved by the gods (in which case piety is a category of things and calling something 'pious' is a way of saying that the thing belongs to the category of things that the gods love)

He asks the same question about things that are carried, things that are changed, things that are loved.
Something (let's say a bucket) is carried / changed / loved when:
a) the bucket IS a thing carried / changed / loved (when the bucket has a quality of 'carriedness', 'changedness', 'lovedness')
-OR-
b) there is a person that is carrying, changing or loving the bucket (when the bucket is BEING CARRIED, BEING CHANGED, or BEING LOVED - when the bucket belongs to the category 'things that are being carried by people', 'things that are being changed by people', 'things that are being loved by people')

Clearly for the bucket it is option B - loved, carried and changed are categories (linguistically I suppose we would call carried and changed 'states' since the relationships are physical rather than conceptual, but lets not get hung up on the technicalities of the English language. The point is that none of these things are qualities of the bucket itself).

But when it comes to considering piety:
SOCRATES: What then do we say about the pious, Euthyphro? Surely that it is being loved by all the gods, according to what you say?'
EUTHYPHRO: Yes
SOCRATES: Is it being loved because it is pious, or for some other reason?
EUTHYPHRO: For no other reason.
SOCRATES: Is it being loved then because it is pious, but it is not pious because it is being loved?
EUTHYPHRO: Apparently.

Euthyphro is lead by Socrates to agree piety is defined in way a) rather than way b).

If Euthyphro had instead claimed that a thing is pious 'because it is being loved' (way b) )(which he should rationally have done since this was his previous argument) then Socrates has no obvious counterargument.

>>14138352
Euthyphro claims that the gods love things because the things are pious. Socrates counters the point with the claim that piety is therefore not the same as 'things that all the gods love'.

[Anonymous No.14138420]

>>14138066
Is it from 'The Red Book' Carl Jung?

[Anonymous No.14138639]

>>14138420
It is a well-known fact that many of Carl Jung's patients committed suicide. Why? They had come to be helped, why did they commit suicide? Something must have been basically wrong. His analysis was just lousy. He was a very arrogant man, very egoistic, continuously ready to fight. Maybe his whole psychoanalysis developed only as his arrogance against Sigmund Freud. Maybe it was again just a rationalization, because he himself seemed to be suffering from the same problems he was thinking to help others with.

[Anonymous No.14138656]

>>14138162
You are a legit retard. Nobody is saying that. But plato was a huge influence on Christianity and things like these are examples of that

[Anonymous No.14138684]

>>14138656
arguing that piety is a category that humans use does not imply that a god or gods are subordinate to that category as the other anon stated when he said
>but this supposes something higher than a god, a metaphysical category that tells the gods to think something is pious or not.

[Anonymous No.14138816]

>>14138639
https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/c.g.-jung-insights-rationalizations-52e6b792-6cd?p=8184c357cee902b8b6c5ea937cd9c5c7

[Anonymous No.14139098]

>>14138816
>osho

[Anonymous No.14139107]

>>14139098
u got problem? crucify me on stick, jew

[Anonymous No.14139231]

>>14138396
>>Trying to make hair-splitting arguments on the semantics of not just ancient Greek language but ancient Greek thought in English translation and with contemporary conceptual categories.

NGMI

[Anonymous No.14139249]

>>14138396
Have you considered that it may not be about winning?

[Anonymous No.14139251]

>>14139231
have you read it? do you disagree that Socrates was making that distinction? what distinction do you think he was making instead?

[Anonymous No.14139259]

>>14139249
The dialogue attempts to show that there is not a satisfactory definition of piety, however it is written in such a way that Socrates never has to argue against the most sensible definition that could be given. The main question raised in the dialogue is effectively sidestepped.

[Anonymous No.14139268]

>>14138066

Throwing tepid spooning-gruel-in-your-grandma's-anus Theology in the garbage.

[Anonymous No.14139302]

>>14138066
I don’t see any problem or dilemma. God has created a world in such a way that certain actions are virtuous (that is, they tend to the goodness of the one doing them). If God created the world any differently, then He would value other actions. Perhaps in a different world, where humans are not social creatures, theft and murder may be virthous, etc. What is the problem here?

[Anonymous No.14139357]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/7527829