The Plato Paradigm

It becomes even more apparent that Euthyphro is concerned with to hosion rather than justice, but will use justice as a rhetorical device. Rhetoric is necessary in a court case. Socrates is not so easily influenced by rhetoric, and he dwells on the legal difficulties of Euthyphro's case. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting ana...

Euthyphro is motivated by to hosion (the holy) to prosecute his father (the prosecution will remove the pollution of murder). Socrates has contrived a portrayal of the gods whereby they are in conflict with each other primarily because they disagree who among them acts justly or unjustly in any given action. This nonsensical portrayal is based on opinions held by Euthyphro, which is why Euthyphro...

Socrates continues his questioning of Euthyphro's reply that the holy is what is loved by the gods. Euthyphro insists that all the gods love his prosecution of his father's unjust killing of one of their bondsmen. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at: https://theplatoparadigm.com

Socrates continues to examine Euthyphro's suggestion that the holy (to hosion) is what is loved by the gods. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at: https://theplatoparadigm.com

Socrates asks for a paradigm of the holy, effectively a definition of the holy (to hosion). Euthyphro suggests the god-loved, the dear-to-the-gods (to prosphiles). Socrates begins his examination of the definition by asking over what we have disagreements. We do not disagree over things which may be measured objectively. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Gre...

The stage is set for the ostensibly more philosophical part of the dialogue. Socrates has made Euthyphro his unofficial teacher; Euthyphro accepts that he was the one who brought up the notion of one thing common to many things (idea is a general aspect; eidos is a particular aspect). Everything is ready for a discussion of the common aspect of to hosion (the holy), next time. Here I read through...

Given that they are paradeigmata of aspects of the idea of the holy (to hosion), Euthyphro and Socrates are faithfully extreme in features pertaining to those aspects. Euthyphro believes everything about mythology. Belief in mythology may therefore be understood to be a feature of one of the aspects of the holy. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text a...

How does Euthyphro intend to use his mythological justification for prosecuting his father? Socrates apparently doesn't know what Euthyphro does, which he says is why he will agree with Euthyphro, his teacher, the one who knows, concerning the holy. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at: https://theplato...

Socrates asks his "teacher" Euthyphro what the holy and the unholy (hosion, anosion) are, and Euthyphro explains that prosecuting his unjust father is holy. He points to the precedents of Zeus binding his unjust father Kronos, and Kronos castrating his unjust father Ouranos. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be...

Socrates takes the next steps towards becoming Euthyphro's student of holiness (to hosion, he hosiotes). In the process he sneakily introduces irreverence (to asebes, he asebeia) and the concept of aspect (idea, cf. eidos). Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at: https://theplatoparadigm.com

Since Euthyphro claims to know about divine things - the holy and the unholy (hosion and anosion) - accurately, Socrates prepares the ground for a discussion of the holy by pretending to become a pupil of Euthyphro (although Euthyphro is not a sophist) as if in order to defend himself against Meletus, either in his trial, or in a counter-trial. Socrates and Euthyphro are both extreme characters, s...

Euthyphro describes the events leading up to the death of the person on whose behalf he is prosecuting his father. Euthyphro's family claim his prosecution of his father for murder to be anosion (unholy), but he claims to know exactly what hosion and anosion mean. He and his family appear to agree that what is anosion causes miasma (pollution). Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating a...

Euthyphro explains why a murderer should be prosecuted by a family member. Both the murderer and the family member have pollution (miasma) and need to remove it through a trial in a court of law. We also have our first indirect mention of the concept hosion. Since this will be under discussion throughout the dialogue, we may simply delimit it here as pertaining to the gods. It is often translated...

Socrates and Euthyphro turn to a discussion of Euthyphro's prosecution, and Euthyphro defends his decision to prosecute his father for murder. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at: https://theplatoparadigm.com

Being and appearance: Euthyphro regards himself and Socrates as fellow predictors of the future; the Many regard Euthyphro as mad (lacking a sophia), but Socrates as possessing a sophia concerning new gods with which he corrupts the young; Socrates, for dialectical purposes, appears to attribute to Euthyphro sophist-like qualities, such as a sophia (the ability to predict the future) and exhibitin...

Euthyphro, being a seer in his spare time,considers Socrates to be unjustly charged with inventing new gods (as if the writ itself is an act of injustice). Meletus, Socrates' prosecutor, and the Many, do not take seriously the idea of a personal daemon, and fail to understand Socrates' daimonion (demonic power). Euthyphro identifies with Socrates as a victim of the Many, since Euthyphro himself is...

Socrates describes his accuser, Meletus, to Euthyphro, and emphasizes how young he is both through the direct description of his appearance and through the agricultural image of a farmer weeding out older plants. Meletus was the actual prosecutor in 399 BC, but he was put up to it by a powerful radical democrat, Anytus, who is not mentioned here (he appears in another dialogue, Meno). Despite appe...

This is the second Platonic dialogue to be analysed in this podcast. Euthyphro and Socrates meet outside the Stoa of the Archon King and begin to discuss their respective cases concerning offences to the gods Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at: https://theplatoparadigm.com

In this final episode on Hippias Minor we see how the dialogue is a dramatization of the consequences of the Many's misconstrual of appearance as a good in itself. Plato has made concrete three aspects of dynamis (ability/power) in the form of the paradeigmata "dialectician" (representing true ability as a means), and two paradeigmata for dynamis treated as a good end in itself - "aristocrat" (soc...

Conclusions are made regarding Plato's point in writing Hippias Minor, and how he went about writing it. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at: https://theplatoparadigm.com

Socrates finally concludes that if anyone performs injustice willingly, it is the just man, but neither Hippias nor Socrates is happy with this conclusion. It is often said that the dialogue ends in aporia, but there was never any dialectical attempt to define a concept in any case. The eristic debate finishes in favour of Hippias, who may now be sure to have some new students. Socrates has failed...

Socrates makes one last attempt to have Hippias realize that ability is only a means and not a good end in itself. He posits justice as an ability. Were justice really an ability, we would need to regard it as an ability with necessarily good ends (were it to have bad ends, it would not be justice); but Hippias regards justice itself, being an ability, as good in itself, and for him this ability,...

Socrates continues to attempt to make Hippias rethink the notion that ability per se is good. Having questioned whether doing bad willingly (with ability) is better than doing bad unwillingly (without ability, and hence without choice) with regard to inanimate tools, he continues with animate tools (e.g., horses and slaves) whose souls do bad from choice (being able), and Hippias prefers even them...

In this eristic movement concerning the choice between two equally bad outcomes, one with ability (willingly) and one without ability (unwillingly) Socrates moves from inanimate tools to animate tools, such as horses, dogs, archers, where the worthless soul is less preferable because the outcome is bad without ability. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek...

Socrates continues his attempts to make Hippias realize that ability is a means, and not a good end in itself, by asking which bad end is preferable, the one by choice (with ability) or the one without choice (without ability). His examples turn to parts of the body. Here I read through Platonic dialogues, translating and commenting on the Greek text as I go. The resulting analyses may be found at...