"I am afraid, Euthyphro, that when you were asked what piety is, you did not wish to make its nature clear to me, but you told me an affect or quality of it, that the pious has the quality of being loved by all the gods, but you have not yet told me what the pious is." (11b)
How is being "god-loved" is like being "carried"? Why does this make Euthyphro's third definition of piety invalid?
7 comments:
Being "god-loved" is like being "carried" because it is just some quality the thing has. Being "god-loved" does not affect the object, but the god that is "loving" the object. This brings up Euthyphro's third definition of piety:
"I would certainly say that the pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is the impious."(9e)
Which is challenged by this statement of Socrate's:
"Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?"(10a)
This statement makes Euthyphro's 3rd statement invalid because his statement just describes a quality of the "man" that is pious.
The "man"-which is pious-is not affected by being "god-loved".
I would like to agree with your example during friday's class with Andrea's basketball. Where you also explained that just because the basketball is being "Andrea-loved", it does not change any of the properties of the basketball.
It seems Euthyphro has given us yet another inadequate definition of piety. It's getting a bit tedious, in my opinion. But I suppose it isn't his fault, because Socrates is unhinging his mind to the point where he's going mad trying to define something that cannot be defined.
When someone says that something is being carried, they're describing a quality of it. This does not define the idea, it merely tells us something about it. Mr. Wille gave a very simple but understandable example in class today. He asked Adrian if he loved the basketball in the middle of our seminar. Adrian replied yes, and we concluded that the basketball was Adrian-loved. This has told us absolutely nothing about the basketball! What is it used for? What IS it? Is it used in a sports game? It seems to be a ball. Do you kick it around? Hit it with something?
So, what then, is piety? Is it a state of mind? Is it a theory? A law? Who defines piety or the morality behind it? We don't know! We will never know! That's what philosophers are for! To argue things out for us while we read what they write and discuss what's wrong with it.
This definition is useless. It tells us nothing. It's even worse than the first two definitions: the example he gave, and the more generalized version of what he said the third time.
The reason that Euthyphros third definition is invalid is because he just gives another quality, he doesn't actually state what piety is. Today in class, the b ball was loved by adrian. However, we knew nothing else about it. It was just a ball that was Adrian-loved. Just like a pencil can be carried at no difficulty to itself, ANYTHING can be pious. Anything can be Cool. Anything can be liked by Mr. Wille. Therefore, we STILL don't know what piety is.
Being "god-loved" just describes a quality of piety, it does not explain what piety is. It is the same thing with the pencil being "carried". The action of carrying the pencil only describes an apsect of the pencil, it doesn't say what the pencil actually is. This makes Euthyphro's third definition of piety invalid because Euthyphro's definition an aspect of piety, it doesn't explain what piety is. In fact, it ends saying more about the gods than it does about piety. It tells what the gods love more than it does piety being loved by god.
so i really like the way socrates is thinking. he's really making alot of sense, and is making euphryo look really stupid. lol but that makes me wonder what how socrates would define piety. is piety even definable? well of course it is. thats what dictionaries are for. acccordin to webstersdictionary, here is the definition of piety ---
1 : the quality or state of being pious: as a : fidelity to natural obligations (as to parents) b : dutifulness in religion : devoutness
2 : an act inspired by piety
3 : a conventional belief or standard : orthodoxy
ok thats ridiculous, the first 2 definitions use da actually word, and the 3rd one doesnt really make sense- orthodoxy what?
ok so if the dictionary cant do it, i dont think euphryo can do it either. no offense to him. i think he should just give up.
well is it possible to give so many qualities and natures or piety--- like give 200 natures, and den 200 qualities of piety- like just give alot, to the point that u basicly defined it? thats probably the only way to do it
I found what Ali said quite interesting, but I kind of have a question now.
What happens when you have hundreds and thousands of qualities and natures of an idea - does that mean you can define it? What do you do? Take the general idea and state that as the definition?
This isn't exactly math. You can't just take the average.
Ventura-
being loved by the gods is like being carried because it is just one aspect of it. if you are loved by the gods it doesnt affect you but the god itself. It is a force beyond you comprehension. You see if you are gog loved it doesnt make you pious but just says you are revered.
Post a Comment