[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 86 KB, 635x933, Socrates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20388007 No.20388007 [Reply] [Original]

I just read Euthyphro. So what is piety?

>> No.20388017

yo ugly as real no cap

>> No.20388025

>>20388007
>I'm wonderin' if a thug's prayers reach
>Is Pious pious 'cause God loves pious
>Socrates asks, "Whose bias do y'all seek?"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FJt7gNi3Nr4

>> No.20388198

>>20388007
its determined by what the gods want

>> No.20388205

>>20388198
So Divine Command Theory which he disproves in this

>> No.20388226

>>20388205
i kinda forgot what his position was but thats what mine is definition of piety would be

>> No.20388228

>>20388205
He doesn't disprove divine command.

>> No.20388693

bump

>> No.20388703

>>20388228
He disproves it as a rational basis of morality.

>> No.20388727

After reading it, I never understood why atheists took it as exclusively an anti-theistic dialogue.

It's a thinly veiled anti-democracy dialogue, proving that democratically defining piety among many Gods is unviable, leading towards Plato's doctrine of the Good as the One.

If you apply the exact same arguments in Euthyphro to modern democratic reasoning, or scientific consensus, (ie, is theory x objectively true because there's scientific consensus, or is there scientific consensus because it's objectively true), they get completely BTFO'd.

>> No.20388777

>>20388727
>is it true because it's scientific consesus or is it scientific consesus because it's true
All they would do is answer the latter

>> No.20388793

>>20388727
It's also about the relationship between epistemology and morality. The other character is so sure he is doing the right thing be convicting his father, but through the dialogue you learn he has no good basis for holding this belief.

It's like crazed social media people feeling righteous about doxing who have never examined a moral in their life.

>> No.20388797

>>20388727
Brainlet. Many Gods versus one God makes no difference to the argument.
>ie, is theory x objectively true because there's scientific consensus, or is there scientific consensus because it's objectively true
Jesus christ is this supposed to be a gotcha? Of course it's the second option, scientific consensus arises because some result is objectively true.

>> No.20388815

>>20388797
define truth in science, protip you cant

>> No.20388819

>>20388815
Define truth. Protip you can't

>> No.20388822

hard mode
-define truth in logic
-define truth in maths

>> No.20388834
File: 18 KB, 400x499, mfwreadingthisshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20388834

>>20388819
>Define truth
1) objective identity
2) evidence (or inter-active coincidence)
3) the fullness of the intuited object
4) the correctness of the signitive intention with respect to the object identified.

>> No.20388840

>>20388834
Gibberish. Truth is really fairy dust and moonbeams

>> No.20388851

>>20388797
>>20388777

No, they wouldn't answer the second. Every atheist I've talked to has denied the existence of "objective truth", or if they didn't deny it, they redefined "objective truth" to mean a consensus by subjective agreement, which means they're answering the former.

>scientific consensus arises because some result is objectively true.

So [insert one of the hundreds of thousands believed and disproven theories here] was agreed upon as true, because it was objectively true, despite the fact it had been disproved?

>> No.20388867

>>20388851
>No, they wouldn't answer the second. Every atheist I've talked to has denied the existence of "objective truth", or if they didn't deny it, they redefined "objective truth" to mean a consensus by subjective agreement, which means they're answering the former.
Nigger you just had two people say it was the second. And what fucking atheist would deny the existence of objective truth? If truth is subjective you can just say God exists or doesn't exist and either way you're subjectively correct.

>> No.20388888

>>20388867

>Nigger you just had two people say it was the second.

If they are atheists, they are welcome to present cases for how belief in objective truth is justifiable from an atheistic worldview, outside of just asserting it raw.

>And what fucking atheist would deny the existence of objective truth?

The ones who recognise that, from atheist propositions, people's knowledge is limited to knowledge gained from their own subjective perspective, since everything from their own personal experience of phenomena, to hearing/reading second hand records or testimonies of phenomena, are filtered by their perspective. Objective knowledge of something other than one's own sense experience, would require someone to have direct experience of something outside of their own experience, which is a direct and blatant contradiction - and if the only knowledge they have is of their own sense experience, then they do not have any direct knowledge of any supposedly objective 'outside world', they only have knowledge of their sense experience.

That's most of them, and this atheistic foundation is the justification for postmodern thinking in the modern age.

The other cope that I've heard from them, apart from redefining "objective" to "consensus between subjective agents" is that in the face of the obvious conclusions from atheist foundations, they just say "But that belief isn't useful, it's more useful to believe that there is an objective knowledge possible", which is not an argument - just an appeal to pragmatism, which they have no way to justify the objective truth of.

>If truth is subjective you can just say God exists or doesn't exist and either way you're subjectively correct.

Correct, but blatant contradictions have never stopped atheists from committing to their beliefs before, or trying to force people to accept what they believe is "objectively true" by their subjectively correct assertions.

>> No.20388909

>>20388815
Sure, that's why the Catholic Church went through all the trouble to get >>20388834 picrel's manuscript out through a secret network of monasteries before they were burned by Nazis.

>> No.20388911

>>20388888
So you've switched from claiming that every atheist you met denied objective truth to giving some stupid argument why atheism isn't compatible with objective truth.
> Objective knowledge of something other than one's own sense experience, would require someone to have direct experience of something outside of their own experience
Not having knowledge of objective truth doesn't mean you deny it's existence. And this whole thing blows up in your face because how would Christcucks have direct experience of anything either? I guess we can both agree that means that every Christian you've ever talked to has denied the existence of objective truth.

>> No.20388973

>>20388911

>Not having knowledge of objective truth doesn't mean you deny it's existence.

So you need to have blind faith in something you've never experienced, and can never have experience of? Curious...

Btw, this is exactly why I don't believe in Roman Catholicism, and Protestantisms that follow blindly in its errors, because they by definition say that it is impossible to have a direct experience of God in this life.

>this whole thing blows up in your face because how would Christcucks have direct experience of anything either

It would blow up in my face if I was trying to be a Christian from the same atheist propositions, yes.

>> No.20388986

>>20388973
>Btw, this is exactly why I don't believe in Roman Catholicism, and Protestantisms that follow blindly in its errors, because they by definition say that it is impossible to have a direct experience of God in this life.
You can't have direct experience of anything. If you're going to claim to have direct experience of God I'll just turn around and claim direct experience of reality.
>It would blow up in my face if I was trying to be a Christian from the same atheist propositions, yes.
What atheist propositions? You gave your argument against direct experience here
>Objective knowledge of something other than one's own sense experience, would require someone to have direct experience of something outside of their own experience, which is a direct and blatant contradiction
which applies equally well to atheists and christcucks.

>> No.20389002

>>20388986
>You can't have direct experience of anything.
NTA, but of course you can, however you can never have an exhaustive experience of something, or the knowledge of the limits of its bounds. However God is a particular type of transcendence in that it is Absolute. We only experience Him mediately through the Revelation. The idea of God is the correlate of our experience of the innate teleology of the world, which itself predates the Revelation.

>> No.20389018

>>20389002
More Gibberish with Schizo capitalization. I have direct experience of the fact that God doesn't exist. If you deny that you're denying objective truth. Claiming direct experience of truth is a stupid way to end any argument

>> No.20389038

>>20388007
A true conjecture powered by divine inspiration.

>> No.20389043
File: 1.24 MB, 900x1327, 1619193358617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20389043

>>20389018
>If you deny that you're denying objective truth.
No, I'm denying the ability of a subhuman intelligence to determine the truth.

>> No.20389050

>>20389043
And I'm denying that you have direct experience of anything. Your experience is inherently subjective by definition. If you want to claim you have the ability to jump out of your subjectivity and directly experience truths I get the same ability. I directly experience you being wrong.

>> No.20389404

>>20388888
>redefining "objective" to "consensus between subjective agents"
This is retarded, if perspective is subjective and because of that we cannot grasp objectivity, then there is not sense in creating a consensus, because there is no way to determine if there are any "subjective agents" other than oneself.
To overcome this and do something productive, it is implicitly assumed that there is objectivity to grasp and that there are other subjective agents. That way, objective remains itself and consensus is only a tool used to approximate it as well as possible in collective thought.

>> No.20389833

>>20388007
Commerce between men and gods.

>> No.20389898

2+1=3
this makes truthlets seethe

>> No.20390603

>>20389050
>Your experience is inherently subjective by definition.
Explain to me what is specifically subjective about my experience of the validity of, for example >>20389898
2+1=3. It is a pure intuition of objective truth.
Transcendence through immanence. bitch. Objectivity is reached within subjective processes, but what is reached is actually objectivity.

>> No.20390611

>>20389833
bourgeois ass take

>> No.20390641

this thread is a good reminder that you’re discussing philosophy with retarded dilettantes on this board. sad!

>> No.20390722

>>20390611
Lol, fair, but it's what the dialogue suggests