For anyone here hoping to get info for a test. This may be the most important info left out. Some texts use different words in the main issue of argument. Holy = pious/piety
Overdrive Active thanks for watching. I’m glad you read it first! There is nothing that can replace reading the original. My hope is just to help those who read it gain better understanding.
I appreciate your delivery - enthusiastic without being over the top. When talking philosophy, this seems to be a hard balance to strike for many. Masterfully communicated. *Subscribed*
This was a very good explanation of Plato’s Euthyphro, you covered pretty much all of the important points. One part that I found thought provoking was when Socrates explained that if there were ever a dispute about which of two numbers was greater they could settle the dispute by resorting to arithmetic; if there were ever a dispute about which object was bigger they could settle it by measuring the objects. But when it comes to agreeing on what is just and unjust or right and wrong the gods do not agree. What is approved by Zeus may be offensive to Kronos. When it comes to the questions about morality the answers don’t appear to be self evident, not even to the gods.
This video actually helped me a lot, I read euthyphro three times yesterday, and it gave me a headache trying to make sense of what I was reading. Thank you so much for putting the text in a way that made a lot more sense for me. Such a huge relief.
Great thoughts and summary of a dialogue that I have read, loved, and chewed on for decades. I appreciate discussion re: the "Euthyphro Dilemma", though that is not what I dwell on. I have always thought - and I am probably wrong - that Plato/Socrates' point - the one that is completely lost on Euth. is in the statement Socrates makes, "Then piety, Euthyphro, is an art which gods and men have of doing business with one another?" It is posed as a question, but is in fact a statement. This was Euth. understanding of piety and holiness boiled down to its very essence. It describes too many people of faith and various life philosophies, it seems. Euth. doesn't care about the nature of piety - he just wants a profitable transaction with the gods. He appears to be looking for reward for its own sake. Piety, to his understanding, is simply the art (in the broadest ancient Greek sense of the term) of business. The Art of the Deal, or whatever that book is called. I think too many of my own faith have this same philosophy thousands of years after Plato tried to get readers past it. The apostle Paul would say, "quit longing for milk, and start eating meat." Unless one is a vegetarian, of course. That is what I got out of this fantastic dialogue.
I've just finished reading Euthyphro and came to find a summary to ensure I'd understood it correctly and this was absolutely brilliant, thank you! I think it's going to take some time and some rereads before I can begin to have my own ideas and opinions about the dilemma though.
In my view, i think its a false dilemma that assumes only to options, that the pious was made or found in the external. It doesn't allow for an obvious answer. The God/gods are what is pious, what is good. It is a part of them, in essence
Thank you for this! I'm reading the Dialogues for my Greek Civ class and was having issues understanding everything Socrates had to say. This was extremely helpful!
I was looking for some background and explanations of this. This is part of several reading assigned in my Concepts of Physics class. Great background material!
Just watched this and can definitely say that it helped me with the class I am taking, talking about this book. Thank you so much for the clarification! I was so confused lol, until now. Do you have a video about Plato, the Apology?
Did you already post the follow up to this video? I was looking for it but couldn’t find it. This was very interesting! Would love to see more videos like this!
I cannot say with 100% certainty, but I believe that the problems in this dialogue are what led to me being a moral anti-realist. NOTE FOR THE UN-NUANCED: this is not the same as being immoral or amoral.
Thank you for the explanation in simpler words. It really helped me get clarity on the subject. However there was one part that got me confused. I'm relatively new to philosophy and this is the text that I am starting off with so I may be completely wrong. But, you said that plato wrote that what is agreeable upon by all gods can't be holy because then it could keep changing and that's why euthyphro didn't go with that option. But why would it keep changing. Wouldn't the gods set like definitions of certain things being holy and those could be followed? Or did the gods exist in the same timeline and change it?
out of all the videos out there on euthyphro , this is by far the best. easy explanation. it shows how clear you are with your concepts. thank you for this❤
All the way from the American University in Cairo, thank you! This has been very helpful and your voice and way of talking is perfect. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Thanks so much for the request. I have one coming out in Plato’s allegory of the cave soon. I’ll see if I’m able to do something on the pre-Socratics in the near future!
What Euthyphro was trying to do is actually worse. Under Athenian law, he _could not_ prosecute his father. He could have prosecuted the day-worker who killed a bond-servant of his family. Only the day-worker's family could have brought prosecution upon his father. So he was there to petition the judge to make an _special case_, to _allow_ him to prosecute his father. In addition, the Jowett translation is better. Euthyphro chose the word _(h)osios_, which Jowett _properly_ translates as "piety", most of the time. There is a contemporaneous word _(h)ieros_, which is about what is sacred (or dear) _to_ the gods. Euthyphro chose the word specifically about what Euthyphro calls "service to the gods", or doing right by the gods. Or even right conduct of man in regard to the gods. And _piety_ is the issue, and what Socrates wants to know how to navigate because he is being tried as a corrupted teaching _impiety_ (that is actions that would not be preferred by the gods) to the youth of Athens. There is no "dilemma". Socrates does what he does in numerous other dialogues; he defeats the pretense of knowledge. He is the gadfly who proclaims that he doesn't know anything and _you_ do not either.
Follow religion and be the lamb. Turn to philosophy and be the lion. Discard the Hebrew scrolls into the fiery pit and hold forth the crown of wisdom. Take the owl’s nest upon your head and study philosophy.
When it comes to applying this dilema to the biblical God, we can see that it really is a false dilema. Its only a dilema if there are only 2 possible choices. But when it comes to God, something is neither objectively good because God wills it, nor does God will something because it is good. God wills something because HE is good. Objective moral values and duties are grounded in God nature. His command flow out of his good nature.
I am just starting to read philosophy so it is sometimes hard for me to put everything together.Altho this dialogue was relatively easy to understand i still had questions.Your summary really explained the essence of the dialogue and it helped me to answer my questions.Thank you for your excellent breakdown.I will be looking forward to seeing more from you
Thank you, this has been extremely helpful. I have zero experience when it comes to philosophy and I am taking an introductory course for the credit towards my psychology degree. My classes are online and my philosophy professor has had zero lectures and has only given us the text with no other material to reference. We have a test next week and there has been no professor/student interaction towards the information that will be tested on.
It's a relatively short read and a great one. While obviously not a Christian text, it has served Christians very well. I'll be posting more on this text in the near future fleshing out some of its relevance for Christians.
