Talk:Euthyphro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Euthyphro as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia. |
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
[edit] 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
[edit] Piety
A populare 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 indepth. 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 teh Euthyphro.' But in the article on piety, or the article on its ancient Greek equivalent, a bit more depth would be very much welcome!
Also, what is the ancient Greek word used here for piety?
user:Whoistheroach 9 June 2006 10:24 AM Chicago time
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)
[edit] 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)
