>reading plato's euthyphro
>19 pages of fine-tuning definitions
>they end up back where they started, and reach no conclusions
what the hell was the point of that?
discuss greek philosophy here
>what one God believes is pious may contradict another God. Therefore each God sees something else as pious and impious
he was pointing out that this conclusion followed from euthyphro's premises which is why euthyphro's premises couldn't possibly be true since it's an absurd conclusion
i have multiple perspectives in mind that i weigh against each other, so let's not fine tune what exactly i mean by "have" and "thought"
i could have worded the op better. (great now we're fine tuning our statements) i should have said definite perspectives. they just fine tune definitions the entire time. they never offer any kind of "complete perspective" (inb4 you ask me to define complete perspective)
I think there is no 'definite perspective' because different, opposed perspectives aren't different thoughts, but only one thought that is differentiated, determined with itself. There is no pure thought that doesn't contain its other (non-identity), its negation implicitly, e.g. there is no conception of justice without injustice first &c.
I'd argue you've misread it. Or at least you've got part of Socrates argument right, but jumped to the conclusion that he was promoting a relativist philosophy. I'd type more and it would be a good discussion, but I'm having a poo then going to bed.
no, i think you are misunderstanding. they discard that perspective itself as being invalid.
they don't offer one perspective and then it's opposite (which would have been fine and dandy in my book), every tentative point of view they bring up they end up discarding for being circular, absurd, incomplete, or invalid
Read the Stanford Article on Plato before you write off the early dialogues as mere experiments. There's far more too them than that, and I doubt you're such an authority to disregard them.
> Negating everything always have a positive result too
i would say this corresponds to some of his other dialogues (that's basically the dialectical method), but not this one. no positive result is proposed. it feels like the dialogue was cut off half way through.
>discarding the judgements was the whole point.
considering how disappointed socrates was at the end, and considering how eager to reach a conclusion he was portrayed...i'm inclined to doubt that
>He had to go to his trial.
it's a fictional dialogue not real life (based on true events, sure). plato could have written in that he was called to the trial after a conclusion was reached
It's common in other dialogues such as Theaetetus.
In very brief, the point is to leave your mind at a blank, so your left to contemplate the ideas on your own and find them within yourself. Read Socrates Midwife speech.
Your post remember me of this:
I think Phaedo is good, more than any other work . It's not any one dialogue really, though, it's the entire process of dialogue itself. You have to see Plato's dialogues as a ritual, an initiation. If you read Plato in an analytic way to break down his points and discover his opinions and try to assess where he fits in the history of Western philosophy, etc., you are reading him wrong (or, at least, not on his own terms). The point is to have your mind swept up in the process of the dialogue, to be fully and completely engaged in it. The dialogue begins with the presentation of an idea, then that idea is attacked, a new idea is offered to correct it, etc., all the while your mind is being trained to contemplate ideas fairly without dismissing them out of hand. Then, when the dialogue reaches its peak, your mind reaches a state of aporia (loss, confusion). This is when your mind feels completely blank. It's hard to describe. Your mind loses all perception, you totally forget the world, your surroundings, your self, and are just in the immediate presence of your own mind. This is when you realise that you have a mind and how immanent it is. The danger here is that you will fall into the Hindu trap of believing that you are part of the divine mind that makes up existence, the experience is that powerful. And then the dialogue introduces its best take of the ideal (usually given by Socrates), and your now freed-up mind is able to contemplate the idea as though it were a statue stood right in front of you.'
well i screencapped it for future reference, so thanks anyway
question: how literally is plato's theory of forms meant to be taken? does he actually believe there is a form corresponding to "table", or is this example merely meant to demonstrate his idea?
It varies really, due to the dialogue style it's hard to pin certain ideas to Plato directly.
Forms can be thought of as universals and templates.
But still, how could you think of a form, without it preexisting? What I mean is, just because something is a concept or idea, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
No it was just a short episode on Socrates showing that another zealous believer was full of shit and knew nothing about what he was talking about.
Euthyphro is the most succinct of Socrates' calling knowers out dialogues
>Have to deal with my drunken dad
>Oh Socrates is here
>Please, before you go, tell me about Piety
>Uh, its about what the gods like, but I really have to go
>Wait, please, I need more details
>Ends up going full circle
>goes into the trial in a state of mental dissaray
>gets confused, can't think straight
>total mental breakdown
>stabs the judge in delirium
thanks a lot socrates, ya fuckin shit
>You all don't know anything durr
>I'm the smartest man ever, cuz I don't know anything more than you hurrrp
Mfw people actually think it is a tragedy that the Athenians killed this retard
>in b4 "I was only pretending to be retarded" or "twas merely a gadfly"
>year of our Lord Socrates ~2,415
>not pretending to be retarded
>reading Plato's Protagoras
>enjoying every second of Socrates dismantling Protagoras' prolix bullshit
>very engaging dialectic discourse
>each changes their viewpoint (arete is teachable and not a bunch of orthogonal traits)
>Socrates leaves to deal with some trivial crap
God damn it finish the damn argument.
oh my god i remember when this first got posted and i was trying tor remember this exact word the other day, you're the best