No video :(

6) Plato's "Euthyphro," part II

Подписаться 13 тыс.

Просмотров 10 тыс.

50% 1

This is a video lecture from PHI 251, History of Ancient Philosophy. This course is taught at the University of North Carolina Greensboro.
If you are interested in more courses (including through our online degree program) please check out the following websites:
philosophy.unc...
philosophy.unc...
online.uncg.edu/
This session is the continuation of our discussion of Plato's dialogue, "Euthyphro," including digging into some of its more implicit, ironic, and performative themes.

Опубликовано:

27 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 38

@janlauterbach7520 2 года назад

Thanks for making your lectures public

@kacpergrabowicz7228 4 года назад

Thanks Adam for recording your lectures.

@iteaire 7 лет назад

Thank you Adam! I'm taking a philosophy class online and your classes have really filled in the gap. ☺️

@nickchavez720 6 лет назад

Might I say the fire engine analogy was very very good.

@augustosarmentodeoliveira3023 Год назад

the student who is a mother at the end is very sweet and thoughtful with her child 😊

@magenmcclendon3461 5 лет назад

Whats interesting to me is that, as you mentioned, Socrates never speaks on "It is pious because the Gods love it". Wouldn't this fall into the category of his criminal charge, in a sense? I love that Socrates almost begs Euthyphro to speak on this subject, enter Socratic Irony: define piety or tell me that what I am being accused of is not impiety. Brilliant!

@ryanromandia8223 4 года назад

This seem like an awesome class ever bodies so engaged.

@careforbunniesnot6075 6 лет назад

Either 720 quality or all CAPS on the board would be much appreciated ^^ Hard to see whats there.

@michaelenglade7882 8 лет назад

Any chance we can get a mic in the gallery?

@tariqpsp 5 лет назад

19:45 - How does Euthyphro's second answer remove the necessity of god/gods? "They love something because it is pious" does not negate the very possibility that piety of that thing was infused by the god/gods themselves in the first place.

@highlanderwins3328 4 года назад

If God/gods love something because it is pious, then the "something" was already pious regardless of God's/the gods' love. And if God/the gods chose to "infuse" the something with piety, it still doesn't answer the question of what piety is. It just adds an extra unnecessary layer onto the question, because now the question becomes, "Why did God/the gods choose to infuse that particular something with piety?" If the answer is "We cannot know the mind of God/the gods", then you've not answered the question of what piety is.

@calvinfuller5293 3 года назад

Because that then exists outside of the gods creation. It implies piety as preceding divine expression. If we took gods away, piety would still exist

@mysticmouse7261 Год назад

Rectangles and squares are both species of quadilaterals

@kusukuttan 2 года назад

You got a sub

@RichardCorral 4 года назад

its because God is all good, just, and pious, and his commandments reflect his nature.

@calvinfuller5293 3 года назад

By what metric is god good, just, and pious? Are those ideas separate from God, or creations of God. Does God not determine what is good just and pious?

@RichardCorral 3 года назад

@@calvinfuller5293 As I said its part of his nature. Creation happens within time and space, God is outside of time and space.

@calvinfuller5293 3 года назад

@@RichardCorral could you elaborate? I’m not sure what you mean “it’s part of his nature”

@calvinfuller5293 3 года назад

@@RichardCorral I’m more asking, what does it mean for god to be good?

@RichardCorral 3 года назад

@@calvinfuller5293 Most I could speculate is that God exhibits infinite benevolence. Being a mere human myself, bound by time and space I can not fully comprehend his nature.

@saljooqhudayar3543 3 года назад

To put it better. Can we say piety is that part of justice that has to do with the service to God?

@kusukuttan 2 года назад

Love from 🇮🇳 India

@saljooqhudayar3543 3 года назад

I think the second part of the fork is correct, it just need to be framed another way. A pious action is pious because God says so but it doesn't make piety or pious actions arbitrary. Because it may be the case that God has said so for the reason that it is good for us. It's not good in itself but God knows as He is a supreme Being that it would not be good for us. Same like parents. Parents knows what is good for their child and they command those actions. Now to ask whether the commanded actions are good because parents said so or they are good in themselves would not help us. We should think that they are good because parents knows better what's good for us and so there must be some reason for their command.

@calvinfuller5293 3 года назад

Then God is using reason. What is “good” for humans

@psychedelicpirate3355 2 года назад

Now this problem depends on the religion, but if we have one god as creator your answer pushes the problem further- if God created the good, what is pious then is not arbitrary, but what is good (on which piety depends) is arbitrary.