Talk:Euthyphro

Third Definition: Ungrammatical and can't parse

Likewise with piety, if defined as "what is liked by the gods"; it is liked for some reason, not just because it is liked, so that one likes it, by itself, does not make an action pious.

"does not make" is a verb phrase with no corresponding noun phrase. Perhaps this should read "so that liking it, in itself, does not make..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The verbs used in Greek the third argument do not seem to be well translated. The text speaks of φερόμενον (the thing being carried) καὶ φέρον (the person carrying it) and does not refer to inherent properties of an object. Suggested change? Mmick66 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Naxos

Naxos was an Island in the possession of the Athenians before Socrates death, but after his death the Athenians had already lost Naxos. This puts this dialogue in a proper chronology which would not have escaped the noticed of the Athenian audience. What one makes of this is another story: Could Plato have used this as a literay devise to establish more credability or was indeed this the circumstance of Euthyphro's actual trial? How do you add footnotes? (new user) I think that a comment like this on Naxos, in a footnote, would be appropriate - Reeve does refer to it in his footnotes also in his translation (source info available upon request)

If you know how to add footnotes, maybe you could add this? Until then, I will attempt to figure it out.

Best regards -Jason

Please don't be in too much of a hurry to add it. I cannot verify the claim in Burnet, whose edition of this dialogue is still the best. For that matter, if it is true, then it actually obscures the point of the dialogue rather than cast light on it. For there are plenty of other reasons we should believe that the action of the Euthyphro takes place very soon before Socrates's own trial, very likely even the same day; likewise, it is inconceivable that Euthyphro would still be appearing before the King Archon on a case that concerns a murder that took place years before: the King Archon is responsible for the preliminary hearings in a murder case, not the trial, nor for something after. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Piety

A popular debate amongst scholars is whether in fact Socrates stated or implied a definition of piety. Many, such as Vlastos and McPherran, argue that he implies that piety is a service to the gods, one which involves the betterment of humans. Another theory, called the 'anti-constructivist by McPherran, hold that Socrates never held a definition of piety - such scholars as Versanyi and Allen have held this position. The main debate for this occurs later in the dialogue. Currently I am working on a paper related to this, and would love any feedback. Would this type of info be too involved for this wikipedia or not? I am currious, because there is a lot of details that I would love to add in here about ancient philosophy and the scholarly work done in its regards, yet do not know if wikipedia seeks to go that in depth. My studies are focused on ancient philosophy, Greceo-Roman culture, and Greek/Latin languages and I would love to add more info here. I am new at this, so could you tell me whether or not this type of info is appropriate?

- Jason

Jason, with regard to your question, you probably want to put into the Euthyphro article something pretty general, such as a one-sentence paragraph saying 'scholars disagree on whether in fact Socrates states or implies a definition of piety in the Euthyphro.' But in the article on piety, or the article on its ancient Greek equivalent, a bit more depth would be very much welcome! Actually, I am glad this was not added. For the whole debate, popular though it may be, misses the point of the dialogue. It is an aporetic dialogue, one that never does produce a final answer, producing instead doubts for all the many and facile wrong answers. It does not address the question of what "final answer" might exist, or what it would be. This is by design. Claiming that Socrates actually has some secret definition obscures this design. If even Plato had such a definition, he never wrote it down. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is the ancient Greek word used here for piety?

user:Whoistheroach 9 June 2006 10:24 AM Chicago time

The above question has since been answered in the body of the article: it is "το οσιον". 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is related - Why in one section do we have (piety) after holiness every time? As is this is very irritating to read. I'd remove it myself and put a sentence explaining the issue, but I don't know anything about it aside from what this talk page has mentioned. Someone who understands the issue should put this into a more professional format. 192.204.106.2 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and do that. It is definitely a readability issue now that I look at it. Kazim27 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad nobody did "go ahead and do that". For it is not a genuine readability problem. Rather, it is a perfectly valid translator's technique for dealing with the translation problem inherent in this term το οσιον. The one term in Greek is sometimes translated 'piety' (though the more common word for this is ευσεβεια), sometimes 'holiness'. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a definition for 'piety' in The Oxford Edition of Plato, in Definitiones, but these definitions are really by Speusippus (Plato's nephew and heir to the Academy), not by Plato. The definition does sound too much like one Socrates rejected in the dialogue, namely, "The holy is service of god, pleasing to god (415a9)" (Όσιον θεράπευμα θεού αρεστόν θεωι)

This definition does not address "Euthyphro's dilemma" at all. 69.3.28.81 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument

Is it correct and helpful to describe the method of argument as "inductive"? --Philogo 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not supposed to be inductive. Anarchia 22:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too, upon my first reading. So I'll go ahead and fix this: "definition by division" is more accurate, though this too is only a partial description of what he is doing in the dialogue. 207.62.247.131 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)