Plato, Euthyphro | The Euthyphro Dilemma | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@mohamedyusuf4777]

You are so under appreciated I love your work and the very fact that you have made 300+ videos on these core concepts speak volumes about your character. So if it wasn't clear already THANK YOU. Sincerely, Mohamed

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome! One of my goals is to make thousands more, covering a whole range of other philosophers. If you'd like to support the work I'm doing, consider becoming a Patreon backer - www.patreon.com/sadler

[@vhscopyofseinfeld]

@@GregoryBSadlerI appreciate your videos. I started following along with a random online intro to philosophy syllabus I found & your videos are great to listen to after reading their assignments (since I can’t be in a lecture class for real).

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@vhscopyofseinfeld Glad you enjoy the videos!

[@GregoryBSadler]

New Plato Core Concept, finishing up the sequence on the Euthyphro. Note: this is not meant to open up a general discussion on the so-called "Euthyphro dilemma as it developed in the contexts of philosophy of religion and atheist-theist polemics -- so please reserve that sort of discussion for the many other videos about the "Euthyphro dilemma." This video is primarily focused on the argumentation as actually found in Plato's text

[@GregoryBSadler]

***** You can pretty much take a look at any of the major ancient or medieval Christian thinkers, when they're discussing the divine attributes (so here, goodness or justice), and see them working out such a response, which will have to do with the divine nature. Perhaps start with Augustine, or (my favorite) Anselm Why not simply do a web search on "euthyphro dilemma" "divine goodness" etc.? You'll come up with more entries than you could possibly read in their entirety -- and those will give you some good starting points to follow up on

[@MrMarktrumble]

You have resolved this question with you Anslem lecture I think. The dilemma is between the action of arbitration as justification of moral maxims by God to make a deontological ethics, and an intrinsic holiness that god merely ratifies. By using Anselm's "god is that which nothing greater can be conceived", and the divine simplicity, the division between God and holiness cannot take place. But when you do this, the principle by which the holy is justified is no longer will, but reason. Perhaps we should then forget the arbitrations of god which makes the good the good, and turn to Kant's Groundwork for an ethics to see true deontological ethics? If the will makes the good, and if god doesn't exist, then Nietzsche's ethics could be seen as a tasty choice.(sapience)

[@JCSuperstar777]

Mark Trumble - How’s that second sentence working for you?

[@tortadebacaxi]

I'm brazilian and I study Law, I couldn't find videos about this in portuguese and I end up here... your explanation is so clear! Thanks very much for this video!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Bárbara Dornelles Flores You're welcome -- glad it was useful for you!

[@erikkguerrero]

I would love to be a student of yours. That would be a dream. Thanks for all that you do, Professor.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, I do offer online classes and tutorial

[@ninjaguava]

My students struggle with this reading, and I remember struggling with it as well as a freshman. I shared your link with my students as extra help with their reading. Thank you! You have made a very tricky (and important) dilemma a little easier to understand.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Nessa Voss You're welcome! Glad it has been useful for your students

[@herculesdewet6941]

I'm interested in philosophy, and I am wondering how to start. I have followed your advice which I found on the internet, and am currently reading Plato's Euthypro dialogue. Your lectures are immensely helpful, thank you. I've subscribed to your website, so will be accessing more content in the near future. Thanks for your help! Hercules de Wet

[@AlexGidra]

One thing I admire most in your videos - use of blackboard. So traditional way to present thoughts in era of slides and inhuman texting.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, I enjoy the old school stuff

[@Calvinxc1]

I always found this dilemma to be somewhat circular, because the logical conclusion to the dialog is to turn the conversation into a discussion of what characteristics of something are holy. That can then be circled back into a discussion of why those characteristics are holy, which brings the conversation back where it started. It's infinitely recursive, which, to me, is the real dilemma to the question.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's one way one could go, I suppose. As it's traditionally understood, it is not circular

[@MrMhornberger]

Jason Cherry In my opinion the question is closer to "is something holy because the gods love it, or do they love it because it's holy?" Or, to move the question to Christianity and morality, does God sanction something because it is right, or is it right only by virtue of God sanctioning it? If we choose the former, then there are standards of right and wrong that are above even God. If the latter, then genocide, rape etc are morally okey-dokey if God say so. However, the first option is also dicey for faith and worship, because it means God could, in principle, be wrong. Take the slaughter of the Midianites, where the soldiers were told to keep the young girls for their 'use.' I think we're left with two options: either God was wrong, or God *cannot* be wrong. Or at least that's my understanding of the Euthypro dilemma, reframed in the context of Christianity.

[@seanmac4725]

Dr. Sadler great information. Love the way you think and explain it all. Got smarter because of you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was helpful for you

[@seanmac4725]

@@GregoryBSadler I appreciate it so much.

[@ticaragonzalez7344]

This really helped with my thesis thank you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You’re welcome

[@bovinejonie3745]

I love that your outfit matches the black board. Very good stuff!

[@JoaoHenriqueWR]

Your work is just helpful in so many ways for those like me, who studies philosophy kinda on its own. Just wanted to thank for the great variety of content that I found here about core concepts and classics in general, since I saddly didnt find it in my native language in such an organized way. Also, a little question (I did watch the video about Self Directed Study): After "finishing" with Plato, and thus Socrates, and Aristotle, should I continue studying philosophy in a sort of a chronological way so I understand way better the core concepts of people such as Aquinus, Descartes, Kant, etc.. Or would you recommend something a bit different?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that's really up to the person. It can't hurt to go through things in a chronological way.

[@rhianGT]

Thank you tried reading and was quite dificult, visual learner, so the lecture works great for me.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you found it helpful!

[@Elchapa130]

thank you sir, this was very helpful.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@luszczi]

Socrates' argument is really sneaky (and then it's nasty). If it wasn't for Dr. Sadler mentioning that a mistake exists (not here, in the long lecture), I would never analyze it properly, thinking that I understand it. The approach that was most helpful for me was to take the form of the argument and plug in unambiguous terms: "Dilemma is a thing that all philosophers ponder". Definitely do not try to use propositional calculus, that's not helpful at all. ;)

[@TheTinCanHitMan]

Thank you, Dr. Sadler.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@JoshV74656]

This video helped me better understand the logical argument going on in the Euthyphro. Is being lovable an intrinsic quality that defines something and causes one to love it? Or is the fact that someone loves something it is then worthy of being loved? That's an interesting dilemma. The later statement reminds me of how advertising works, this famous person likes this thing, now you like and need this thing. Might be why I am often disappointed when I give in to advertising, the thing didn't have inherent value but I valued it anyway. If God snapped her fingers and said lying was now a moral activity would I find lying as a virtue to be particularly satisfying and beneficial, probably not. Bummer the Euthyphro kind of ends on a cliff hanger, never does say what pious truly is.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You'll find quite a few dialogues end like that

[@khalil1123]

Million thanks for all of these great videos dear Dr.Sadler.Hope that some day i'll have chance to meet you)

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome -- as to meeting, most of the events I speak at tend to be local (i.e. New York, New Jersey, Vermont, etc.) But eventually, we'll be expanding the range. Where are you located?

[@khalil1123]

Actually i live in Azerbaijan,Baku.But i am planning to do my master degree in the U.S.A.So once again thank you very much for those great videos and for having time to answer my emails)I have watched your videos on anger and I am currently reading Seneca's book titled "on anger".Which movies do you think have interesting philosophical themes? Have a nice day)

[@tetragrammatonasabovesobel885]

viewing from nigeria, thank you so much for this videos

[@GregoryBSadler]

You’re very welcome!

[@maximum8302]

Thanks dr. Sadler for your great explanation Do I understand it correctly that the argument that Euthyphro makes about the holy being: that what is loved by the gods cannot be truth, because it would mean that the holy and the beloved are identical, they would have the same relation to love. That is, if something is holy because it is loved by the gods, and something is loved because it is loved by the gods, then there would be no distinction between the holy and the beloved. But the holy has a intrinsic value that is why it is loved While the beloved is loved because the gods love it; the rating has been awarded externally. I tried different translations and versions of the text but I still get confused when Plato starts mixing al these different terms.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Euthyphro doesn’t make an argument. Socrates does. And it is complex

[@Daniel-hq7hm]

I like to think to this question (at least in mono-theistic reference) is that God *is* the good, meaning that since God created it, it's part of him. This would align with the fact that Jesus, being a part of God, is entirely good. Which would mean that "good," simply refers to part of God's essence. I'm not going to speculate as to whether God can decide to change his nature or not, that is beyond me. But to me, this would make God's definition of good to not be arbitrary since, it's a part of him, and he has stated that evil cannot be apart of him so it couldn't be anything else.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that’s definitely not orthodox Christian thought there.

[@jefpalmertexas5032]

Thanks for your concept and articulation -It is helpful! Thanks again.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@humblejumpify]

A million thanks!!!!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@eduardosoccer7]

Thank you. This is very helpful

[@GregoryBSadler]

+eduardosoccer7 You're welcome!

[@EarthWorms77]

You're brilliant

[@GregoryBSadler]

+EarthWorms77 That's very kind of you to say!

[@ace_9976]

If one were to change Gods to God, would that make any difference? Socrates seems to imply there is no objective concept of what holy is because the Gods argue about different conceptions and what constitutes what is holy Is different from one to another. If Euthypro said there is only one God and God determines what is holy and unholy and there is no challenge to him and that he creates the concept of holy and unholy, would his point still stand? Thank You! And great video!

[@GregoryBSadler]

It would make a difference in that section about conflict between gods, of course. As to the next section, which is what really matters, it would not make a difference

[@ace_9976]

@@GregoryBSadler Ok thanks !

[@MichaelJimenez416]

Are you familiar with the greek word Aitios (αἴτιος)? If so, in what significant way does it differ from Aitia/Aition?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, I'm familiar with it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYTRqamkp6h7gtk

[@dannymunoz8027]

I have a translation in which Socrates sometimes says God, singular and sometime he says god's plural. Is this a mistake of translation or is this correct. Who is Socrates referring too, if correct, when he uses the word God. Also does Socrates talk so sarcastically all time? I feel like Euthyphro should have been insulted by Socrates quite a few times.

[@GregoryBSadler]

In classical Greek, it's fairly common to see people talking about gods, a particular god, or the divine more generally.

[@dannymunoz8027]

+Gregory B. Sadler thanks for always replying!

[@ericzarahn9343]

A reason to love something because the gods love it is fear of the gods.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Depends on what "fear" means, I suppose, and how powerful those gods are

[@zaccronin5056]

I feel like this writing has almost nothing to do with religion and has a way deeper meaning.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's possible for it to have multiple levels. Most classic works do

[@dennisdaenekas3209]

Why does Euthyphro agree that the God beloved and the pious are the same?

[@GregoryBSadler]

If you read the dialogue, you'll see that it's one of several proposed ways to define "piety." It's a natural enough one, though -- though as we get to see, prone to a few problems

[@quisdaman]

God is the good. The good is god.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, another option. Not considered in the Euthyphro