brilliance of mind of Socrates is unique. With Plato's dialogues, many of the acquis remain in our culture. One of the works of Plato, describing one of the conversations of Socrates is Eutyfron. Accused of treason, spoiling the youth and many others drawn from the hat acts in court philosopher meets a friend who reported to his father in the name of his own virtue. While this raises the question of what is pious deed and what is not, Socrates maneuvers conversation so that it must withdraw Eutyfron potrafiwszy not find the words of the philosopher's defense.
One of the most interesting moments of the discussion is to talk about what is pious and what is not. Eutyfron in one sentence says that the pious is what pleases the gods. However, when asked what pleases the gods, he replied that what is pious. However, there is no guidance or to the settlement, which is really pious, or what the gods want. Socrates immediately complains that a god can have pleasure in something other than the second. So, when the data are conflicting values, whether both are pious, or none of them is not. This is what one pleases, there will be another like it. Is there any action that will be liked everything?
This argument is one of the main negative polytheism. But not against polytheism I would like to write, but against the definition of good and evil, by what pleases God or not. The truth is that even assuming that God exists, what we know about him? Can we categorically assert any ground, what God wants and what is not? We may presume that God will be pleased with the good, but if we can on that basis to say what specific action he would liked? It is impossible to define in this way, good and evil. Denying, we stand on the side of the hopeless Eutyfrona dispute against Socrates.
Immanuel Kant in the Metaphysics of morals , without denying the existence of God, suggests the need to exit right from the very humanity, and not pleasing to God. So how do we define what is good and what is wrong? I recommend my previous entry.
One of the most interesting moments of the discussion is to talk about what is pious and what is not. Eutyfron in one sentence says that the pious is what pleases the gods. However, when asked what pleases the gods, he replied that what is pious. However, there is no guidance or to the settlement, which is really pious, or what the gods want. Socrates immediately complains that a god can have pleasure in something other than the second. So, when the data are conflicting values, whether both are pious, or none of them is not. This is what one pleases, there will be another like it. Is there any action that will be liked everything?
This argument is one of the main negative polytheism. But not against polytheism I would like to write, but against the definition of good and evil, by what pleases God or not. The truth is that even assuming that God exists, what we know about him? Can we categorically assert any ground, what God wants and what is not? We may presume that God will be pleased with the good, but if we can on that basis to say what specific action he would liked? It is impossible to define in this way, good and evil. Denying, we stand on the side of the hopeless Eutyfrona dispute against Socrates.
Immanuel Kant in the Metaphysics of morals , without denying the existence of God, suggests the need to exit right from the very humanity, and not pleasing to God. So how do we define what is good and what is wrong? I recommend my previous entry.
0 comments:
Post a Comment