Scan barcode
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
5.0
Socrates slaps religious moralist
Socrates was charged of being impious, and ignorant as he knew himself to be, he decided to learn the meaning of word from Euthyphro. As usual, Socrates is able to get Euthyphro (who repeatedly claims wisdom over the subject)eating his words. Euthyphro offers five different definitions, one after other, until the conversation runs the full circle and he conveniently remembers some other engagement and runs away. The dilemma remains unanswered as far as today, and is a strong argument against religious faiths. A great dialogue and not usual Socrates fodder.
Getting out of dialogue, the central argument has found a history of it own:
Euthyphro dilemma
"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
A good moral version could be:
(a.) Is something moral because god(s)love it; or
(b.) does god(s) love something because it is good
If (a.) is true, than god(s) come up as more of a dictator (see ) divine command theory, who to make things worse, has no legitimacy to his authority, because morality exist only as per his will.
What if he comes up moody, and decides on completely new standard of goodness?
Many religious texts (Gita, Quran, Bible) actually derive their authority over moral issues from will of god.
If (b) is true; the god(s) is simply rendered redundant as far as basis of morality goes. Morality no longer needs god and hence god has one less function to do. That could be a great blow to his/ her sovereignty.
Socrates' dilemma remains a standing argument to date. Although there have been some replies. There is an interesting history to the argument.
Socrates was charged of being impious, and ignorant as he knew himself to be, he decided to learn the meaning of word from Euthyphro. As usual, Socrates is able to get Euthyphro (who repeatedly claims wisdom over the subject)eating his words. Euthyphro offers five different definitions, one after other, until the conversation runs the full circle and he conveniently remembers some other engagement and runs away. The dilemma remains unanswered as far as today, and is a strong argument against religious faiths. A great dialogue and not usual Socrates fodder.
Getting out of dialogue, the central argument has found a history of it own:
Euthyphro dilemma
"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
A good moral version could be:
(a.) Is something moral because god(s)love it; or
(b.) does god(s) love something because it is good
If (a.) is true, than god(s) come up as more of a dictator (see ) divine command theory, who to make things worse, has no legitimacy to his authority, because morality exist only as per his will.
What if he comes up moody, and decides on completely new standard of goodness?
Many religious texts (Gita, Quran, Bible) actually derive their authority over moral issues from will of god.
If (b) is true; the god(s) is simply rendered redundant as far as basis of morality goes. Morality no longer needs god and hence god has one less function to do. That could be a great blow to his/ her sovereignty.
Socrates' dilemma remains a standing argument to date. Although there have been some replies. There is an interesting history to the argument.
jorritvanderschot's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
3.25
elyia's review against another edition
3.0
POV an r/atheist and a fanatic have a debate
(The fanatic gets owned)
(The fanatic gets owned)
amgratz's review against another edition
5.0
euthyphro is slippery to an uncanny degree when compared to the interlocutors of the republic. i wonder if this is to subliminally represent a faulty, circular logic loving ground on which people fix their religious faiths. socrates would no doubt be stirring the pot and worthy of an indictment were that the case
anneliesepeerbolte's review against another edition
3.0
Read sections 2-11 for class. Many thoughts on Socrates and his interpersonal skills.
minimalmike's review against another edition
3.0
Rating based on my enjoyment and benefit alone, 3/5.