Talk:Euthyphro

Third Definition: Ungrammatical and can't parse
Likewise with piety, if defined as "what is liked by the gods"; it is liked for some reason, not just because it is liked, so that one likes it, by itself, does not make an action pious.

"does not make" is a verb phrase with no corresponding noun phrase. Perhaps this should read "so that liking it, in itself, does not make..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The verbs used in Greek the third argument do not seem to be well translated. The text speaks of φερόμενον (the thing being carried) καὶ φέρον (the person carrying it) and does not refer to inherent properties of an object. Suggested change? Mmick66 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Number/Letter notation?
What is this business with following arguments with unexplained number/letter combinations (e.g. 9e)? Was this copy/pasted from some place in which this had some context? 128.239.47.74 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it should be explained. But where is the right place for this explanation? That is an editorial decision.

The numbers are Stephanus numbers. These are references to the page and section numbers (resp. letters) in the editio princeps of Plato, printed by Stephanus. Usually they are in square brackets (e.g. [13e1]), and sometimes they include line numbers. But these are printed only for the Greek editions, since changes in word order in the translation process often garble up the individual lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.11.61 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Daimon
Is anyone intersted in creating an article for daimon? I am intersted in this concept and was disappointed with the disambiguous link. Thanks! Piyrwq 23:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am all for it - Jason

Is it not here already as Daemon?

Naxos
Naxos was an Island in the possession of the Athenians before Socrates death, but after his death the Athenians had already lost Naxos. This puts this dialogue in a proper chronology which would not have escaped the noticed of the Athenian audience. What one makes of this is another story: Could Plato have used this as a literay devise to establish more credability or was indeed this the circumstance of Euthyphro's actual trial? How do you add footnotes? (new user) I think that a comment like this on Naxos, in a footnote, would be appropriate - Reeve does refer to it in his footnotes also in his translation (source info available upon request)

If you know how to add footnotes, maybe you could add this? Until then, I will attempt to figure it out.

Best regards -Jason

Please don't be in too much of a hurry to add it. I cannot verify the claim in Burnet, whose edition of this dialogue is still the best. For that matter, if it is true, then it actually obscures the point of the dialogue rather than cast light on it. For there are plenty of other reasons we should believe that the action of the Euthyphro takes place very soon before Socrates's own trial, very likely even the same day; likewise, it is inconceivable that Euthyphro would still be appearing before the King Archon on a case that concerns a murder that took place years before: the King Archon is responsible for the preliminary hearings in a murder case, not the trial, nor for something after. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Piety
A popular debate amongst scholars is whether in fact Socrates stated or implied a definition of piety. Many, such as Vlastos and McPherran, argue that he implies that piety is a service to the gods, one which involves the betterment of humans. Another theory, called the 'anti-constructivist by McPherran, hold that Socrates never held a definition of piety - such scholars as Versanyi and Allen have held this position. The main debate for this occurs later in the dialogue. Currently I am working on a paper related to this, and would love any feedback. Would this type of info be too involved for this wikipedia or not? I am currious, because there is a lot of details that I would love to add in here about ancient philosophy and the scholarly work done in its regards, yet do not know if wikipedia seeks to go that in depth. My studies are focused on ancient philosophy, Greceo-Roman culture, and Greek/Latin languages and I would love to add more info here. I am new at this, so could you tell me whether or not this type of info is appropriate?

- Jason

Jason, with regard to your question, you probably want to put into the Euthyphro article something pretty general, such as a one-sentence paragraph saying 'scholars disagree on whether in fact Socrates states or implies a definition of piety in the Euthyphro.' But in the article on piety, or the article on its ancient Greek equivalent, a bit more depth would be very much welcome! Actually, I am glad this was not added. For the whole debate, popular though it may be, misses the point of the dialogue. It is an aporetic dialogue, one that never does produce a final answer, producing instead doubts for all the many and facile wrong answers. It does not address the question of what "final answer" might exist, or what it would be. This is by design. Claiming that Socrates actually has some secret definition obscures this design. If even Plato had such a definition, he never wrote it down. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is the ancient Greek word used here for piety?

user:Whoistheroach 9 June 2006 10:24 AM Chicago time

The above question has since been answered in the body of the article: it is "το οσιον". 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is related - Why in one section do we have (piety) after holiness every time? As is this is very irritating to read. I'd remove it myself and put a sentence explaining the issue, but I don't know anything about it aside from what this talk page has mentioned. Someone who understands the issue should put this into a more professional format. 192.204.106.2 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and do that. It is definitely a readability issue now that I look at it. Kazim27 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad nobody did "go ahead and do that". For it is not a genuine readability problem. Rather, it is a perfectly valid translator's technique for dealing with the translation problem inherent in this term το οσιον. The one term in Greek is sometimes translated 'piety' (though the more common word for this is ευσεβεια), sometimes 'holiness'. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a definition for 'piety' in The Oxford Edition of Plato, in Definitiones, but these definitions are really by Speusippus (Plato's nephew and heir to the Academy), not by Plato. The definition does sound too much like one Socrates rejected in the dialogue, namely, "The holy is service of god, pleasing to god (415a9)" (Όσιον θεράπευμα θεού αρεστόν θεωι)

This definition does not address "Euthyphro's dilemma" at all. 69.3.28.81 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Plato on Holiness
This discourse on morality and religion takes place in Plato's work entitled “Euthyphro,” where Plato is discussing the relationship between God and moral goodness. Socrates, Plato's character who voices his viewpoint, is engaged in a dialogue with the self-righteously religious Euthyphro. Euthyphro is going to court to turn in his father for killing a slave. Socrates raises the question known as “the divine command theory of ethics.” This theory asks whether good is only good due to the fact that God loves it, or does God love good due to the fact that it is good? Socrates words it this way: “Do the gods love holiness because it is holy, or is it only holy because they love it?” Socrates tries to explain to Euthyphro that a “thing is not loved because it is in a state of being loved. It is in a state of being loved because they love it.” Socrates wants Euthyphro to agree that holiness in a person's life is loved by the gods due to the fact that it is holy, and is not holiness because they love it. This also goes for what is pleasing to the gods, who love what is pleasing to them because it is pleasing to them. Hence, Socrates concludes that the gods love holiness, goodness, and what is pleasing to them because of what they are, and they do not become holiness, goodness, or what is pleasing to the gods because they love them. Socrates then asks Euthyphro to explain what holiness is; it's very essence. Socrates advises him to ignore whether the gods love it or not, or whether it has other characteristics. He should first attempt to rationally explain what holiness and unholiness are before he jumps to any conclusions.

- Mancalf


 * What's this for? There is already a complete (and better formulated) summary in the article. 81.236.167.80 11:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument
Is it correct and helpful to describe the method of argument as "inductive"? --Philogo 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not supposed to be inductive. Anarchia 22:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too, upon my first reading. So I'll go ahead and fix this: "definition by division" is more accurate, though this too is only a partial description of what he is doing in the dialogue. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cronus and Uranus
RE: "Socrates expresses reservations about those accounts which show up the gods' cruelty. He mentions the castration of the early sky god, Uranus, by his son Cronos, saying he finds such stories very difficult to accept."

This is never made explicitly clear in this particular text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.49.158 (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a problem with the formulation as it stands, but Cronus and Uranus are mentioned in 8b. Socrates says that Euthyphro's punishing his father may please Zeus, but not Cronus and Uranus, or Hephaestus, but not Hera.  A reasonable interpretation of this is that Euthyphro's actions may please gods who have punished their parents, but not those gods punished by their children.  That is, the problem here is that appeal to divine standards of justice must be problematic, since the gods disagree — and not on the basis of justice, but of self-justification, thus raising the problem of whether the gods love what is pious because it is pious, or whether something is pious solely because it is loved by the gods.  But I would like some input on how to phrase the article to account for this.   RJC  TalkContribs 06:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps though, it is beyond the scope of Euthyphro to address whether or not Socrates advocated the belief that negative views of the gods were distasteful? Brutt (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * After carefully rereading the text, I find that I have erred: Euthyphro relates the story of Zeus binding his father, and of Cronus castrating Uranus. Socrates states "...I find it hard to accept things like that being said about the gods..." 6a. Brutt (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)