Some Thoughts On The Euthrypho Dilemma

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
This thread has been inspired by a discussion with 2Philovoid in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/without-human-existence-does-god-need-to-be-good.7910680/ ,
and I´d like to dedicate it to him. :)

In that thread we came to agree, that the Euthrypho Dilemma can´t address a basic generic god concept - stripped off any theological premises and defining properties. (That´s not THAT huge an insight, but we had a little party nonetheless).

This morning, in the creative five minutes of half-sleep between waking up and getting up, the following thoughts came to me (Maybe they are not new, maybe they are painfully trivial, maybe they are complete nonsense, maybe they need modification or refining - I´ll throw them out nonetheless):

So what can the Euthrypho Dilemma actually do for us? What are its merits? What is it an effective tool for?

I don´t think that - even though it´s circled around God - it actually is about God.
It is a fundamentally subversive reductio ad absurdum to any authoritative/authoritarean model of morality. Ultimately, it tackles all structures, in which morality is unquestionably linked to power (and typically is used as a tool to stabilize and maintain this power).
This needn´t be a God. In authoritarean thought structures it can be Daddy, the King, the boss, the American Constitution (the forefathers), the Almighty Communist Party,...; or even just "the majority".
IOW: all systems, in which one thought (which is the most obvious third option to the false dilemma to every observing bystander) is taboo: "Well, maybe the self-professed moral authority is not good." (There are other solutions to the dilemma, too.)
[Of course, in hierarchical authoritarean structures each relative authority will justify it´s authority by referring to a meta-authority. Like, Daddy might refer to the law of the country or the Pope as a meta-authority. Thus, it´s very elegant of Plato to go right away for the supposedly highest authority above which none can possibly exist: God.]

So what can you do if proposing a third option is forbidden ground (and possibly might cost you your head due to "blasphemy", or at least will earn you a knuckle sandwich)?
You simply accept the unquestionable premise ("X is good", or more to the point here "When X says it´s good it´s good") and scoop it out by - in all innocence - asking a question which leads to a dilemma. You take this dilemma seriously, you consider it back and forth, but conclude that there - sadly! - isn´t a solution to it. [If remaining within the paradigms and the unquestionable premises, that is. In order to avoid being shot for being the messenger, you leave it to the thinking audience to find out how the false dilemma - which falseness isn´t your making, but inherent to the premise of the structures in question - can be easily solved.]

I don´t dare to assert that this was actually Plato´s intention. Maybe he found the most effective way of poking a devastating hole into any power=morality conjunction just inadvertantly.
 

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This thread has been inspired by a discussion with 2Philovoid in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/without-human-existence-does-god-need-to-be-good.7910680/ ,
and I´d like to dedicate it to him. :)

In that thread we came to agree, that the Euthrypho Dilemma can´t address a basic generic god concept - stripped off any theological premises and defining properties. (That´s not THAT huge an insight, but we had a little party nonetheless).

This morning, in the creative five minutes of half-sleep between waking up and getting up, the following thoughts came to me (Maybe they are not new, maybe they are painfully trivial, maybe they are complete nonsense, maybe they need modification or refining - I´ll throw them out nonetheless):

So what can the Euthrypho Dilemma actually do for us? What are its merits? What is it an effective tool for?

I don´t think that - even though it´s circled around God - it actually is about God.
It is a fundamentally subversive reductio ad absurdum to any authoritative/authoritarean model of morality. Ultimately, it tackles all structures, in which morality is unquestionably linked to power (and typically is used as a tool to stabilize and maintain this power).
This needn´t be a God. In authoritarean thought structures it can be Daddy, the King, the boss, the American Constitution (the forefathers), the Almighty Communist Party,...; or even just "the majority".
IOW: all systems, in which one thought (which is the most obvious third option to the false dilemma to every observing bystander) is taboo: "Well, maybe the self-professed moral authority is not good." (There are other solutions to the dilemma, too.)
[Of course, in hierarchical authoritarean structures each relative authority will justify it´s authority by referring to a meta-authority. Like, Daddy might refer to the law of the country or the Pope as a meta-authority. Thus, it´s very elegant of Plato to go right away for the supposedly highest authority above which none can possibly exist: God.]

So what can you do if proposing a third option is forbidden ground (and possibly might cost you your head due to "blasphemy", or at least will earn you a knuckle sandwich)?
You simply accept the unquestionable premise ("X is good", or more to the point here "When X says it´s good it´s good") and scoop it out by - in all innocence - asking a question which leads to a dilemma. You take this dilemma seriously, you consider it back and forth, but conclude that there - sadly! - isn´t a solution to it. [If remaining within the paradigms and the unquestionable premises, that is. In order to avoid being shot for being the messenger, you leave it to the thinking audience to find out how the false dilemma - which falseness isn´t your making, but inherent to the premise of the structures in question - can be easily solved.]

I don´t dare to assert that this was actually Plato´s intention. Maybe he found the most effective way of poking a devastating hole into any power=morality conjunction just inadvertantly.

Thanks again for the dedication, quatona; but as it appears thus far, not many have engaged your lively and thought provoking OP. Which is puzzling to me, because it is such a commonly cited dilemma, I'd think there would be several people all over it by now...

I'm guessing Plato's source title is diverting everyone away from your illustrious work (Who or what is, "Euthyphro"?). But, we can sit tight for a day or two and see if there are any takers, quatona.

As far as what I think? Well, after reading this particular work of Plato's for the second time (and probably needing a third, really), I'm now of the opinion that the Euthyphro dilemma is ensconced in a Grecian paradigm which cannot be successfully extricated from its own ontological trappings, and in turn, neither can it be used as a paradoxical challenge (or bludgeon) to a robust Christian paradigm. In fact, I'd say that if we only had the Euthyphro work to go on, we'd be tempted to conclude that Plato (or his version of Socrates) is a somewhat smug and impious chap. But, who am I to say since I've never met him in person? Maybe he was a really nice, and thoughtful, guy. ;)

In relation to its use as an argument against authority, I suppose it might have some application, but it would have to be 'abstracted' a bit to do so. More specifically, I do like your point about "...it´s very elegant of Plato to go right away for the supposedly highest authority above which none can possibly exist: God." Yes, this is true, but it is a very specific idea of the divine that Plato attempts to dislodge as an 'authority.' I don't know; from what I can tell, Plato (Socrates) really thought a lot of his metaphysical 'Forms'--'The Good' being an example, and that this notion somehow enables the wise to liberate their eternal souls (and convoluted brains) from their puny bodies.

That's my initial thought, here. But, what can the dilemma actually do for us? Well, it can teach us an aspect or two us about the way in which Plato viewed the world's ontological make-up: He thought the Greek gods were somewhat laughable on a moral scale, and that their devoted human followers consistently dabbled in 'circular thinking.' The Euthyphro work can also show us some of the limits of deductive type thinking, such as those plaguing Plato's ....er....uh....logic. o_O It can also start one to thinking about 'why' in the world later Christian thinkers would possibly deign to consider Plato's framework as one with which they could hang some of their theological thought. [Oh, the perils of culture and language...!]

Quatona, I do like your final touch in saying, "...If remaining within the paradigms and the unquestionable premises, that is. In order to avoid being shot for being the messenger, you leave it to the thinking audience to find out how the false dilemma - which falseness isn´t your making, but inherent to the premise of the structures in question - can be easily solved."

This gets me to wondering more as to just how much of the dilemma really "isn't of Plato's making." :D

[Good prose, my friend. I think you've some good ideas here that have in turn made me think yet again.]

2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Hey, thanks Philovoid, for dignifying my post with such an interesting and thoughtful response!

I suspect that the lack of interest is a case of tl;dr. Also, it doesn´t leave much space for spontaneous antagonizing or polarizing (even less for a fight between theists and atheists, which appears to be the most popular occupation here).

I must confess that I do not know much about Plato, his life, his character, his environment, his sources. If memory serves, I hadn´t even read much of his works back in those days when I read classic philosophy. So I am afraid that - even though I´ve read your post with great interest - I can´t address much of it in an appropriate (i.e. educated and informed) manner.

Just for clarification: I didn´t mean to make assumptions about Plato´s intention (even though it may have sounded like that, occasionally). Which, I think, would forbid itself because - among other reasons - we aren´t contemplating on Plato´s Dilemma as he posed it but on a later version of it, anyway.

I totally agree with you that we mustn´t forget the paradigms of thinking (I would even go so far as to say: limitations of thinking) in the context of which philosophical statements have been made (and within which the terms need to be understood - when looking at it historically). IOW the unconscious, "natural" premises on which an ancient philosophy rested. This can´t be emphasized enough. And just to not be misunderstood: I am not suggesting that today there aren´t such limitations (even though I tend towards the notion that today we may have a wider scope). Is that - more or less - what you mean by the term "ontological trappings"? I notice you have used it more than once in our conversations, yet I am not quite sure since I have never come across it, at least not in English (sorry, non native speaker here).

While you (at least in your current study of Plato) seem to be primarily interested in a "historically correct" understanding, my OP was rather naive in that it really but contemplated on "What can (modernized version of) the ED do for us (within the framework and in front of the background of today´s thinking and today´s understanding of the terms)". Both approaches, though, seem to have the capacity of inspiring each other.

we'd be tempted to conclude that Plato (or his version of Socrates) is a somewhat smug and impious chap. But, who am I to say since I've never met him in person? Maybe he was a really nice, and thoughtful, guy. ;)
Here´s hoping (out of very personal interest) that being smug and impious isn´t entirely irreconcilabe with being really nice and thoughtful. ;)

Thanks again!
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey, thanks Philovoid, for dignifying my post with such an interesting and thoughtful response!
No problemo....any time! :cool:

I suspect that the lack of interest is a case of tl;dr. Also, it doesn´t leave much space for spontaneous antagonizing or polarizing (even less for a fight between theists and atheists, which appears to be the most popular occupation here).
Yes, it looks like your endeavor to spur on intellectual growth and insight has gone unappreciated. And you're right, too, that we seem to have pared this topic down to a narrow path of conversation, which for some, isn't very stimulating. (Oh well, their loss!) ;)

I must confess that I do not know much about Plato, his life, his character, his environment, his sources. If memory serves, I hadn´t even read much of his works back in those days when I read classic philosophy. So I am afraid that - even though I´ve read your post with great interest - I can´t address much of it in an appropriate (i.e. educated and informed) manner.
Your confession is heard and forgiven, 'my son.' :D [Besides, Plato isn't exactly the first thing anyone thinks of reaching for at the first sign of personal boredom; in fact, it might be the first thing to cause boredom...] Anyway, I'm not master of Plato. I read bits and pieces of his work at the university, but he wasn't one I liked to concentrate on.

Just for clarification: I didn´t mean to make assumptions about Plato´s intention (even though it may have sounded like that, occasionally). Which, I think, would forbid itself because - among other reasons - we aren´t contemplating on Plato´s Dilemma as he posed it but on a later version of it, anyway.
No problem; if my memory serves me correctly, it was me who decided to veer onto a focus of Plato's intentions (particularly since I'm not a Derrida fan).

I totally agree with you that we mustn´t forget the paradigms of thinking (I would even go so far as to say: limitations of thinking) in the context of which philosophical statements have been made (and within which the terms need to be understood - when looking at it historically). IOW the unconscious, "natural" premises on which an ancient philosophy rested. This can´t be emphasized enough. And just to not be misunderstood: I am not suggesting that today there aren´t such limitations (even though I tend towards the notion that today we may have a wider scope). Is that - more or less - what you mean by the term "ontological trappings"? I notice you have used it more than once in our conversations, yet I am not quite sure since I have never come across it, at least not in English (sorry, non native speaker here).
Yes, I think you you've understood my basic premise--that we can't just lift an earlier idea without recognizing the original context in which the original writer worked, much of which likely carried a (possibly) particular ontological framework, and being one that, if we reject its cogency, might also do damage to any apparent 'truths' we think we carry out with us from the original premise. All of this is, in some respects, what we've been talking about for the most part here and in the previous thread. So, yes, you got the gist of my newly concocted term, "ontological trappings." :cool:

While you (at least in your current study of Plato) seem to be primarily interested in a "historically correct" understanding, my OP was rather naive in that it really but contemplated on "What can (modernized version of) the ED do for us (within the framework and in front of the background of today´s thinking and today´s understanding of the terms)". Both approaches, though, seem to have the capacity of inspiring each other.
Mmmm....yes, that 'inspiration' thing can be important at times. o_O

Here´s hoping (out of very personal interest) that being smug and impious isn´t entirely irreconcilabe with being really nice and thoughtful. ;)
I think you've proven that being generally amiable can permit a few friendly jabs and jeers. Sometimes we need a few good critics to help us think more substantively and relevantly.

Thanks again!
Likewise...:cool:
 
Upvote 0