Help with philosophy...

[Edilibs]

I am currently writing a paper on Plato and his theory of forms described in Euthyphro. One of the question on the writing prompt confuses me and I was wondering if anyone could help clarify it for me(I asked my TA for help and it didn't really help much). Thanks...

"How might Plato's theory of Forms satisfy Socrates's search for an adequate account of piety?"

Plato explained in Phaedo that it is piety itself that makes a pious act pious, but that doesn't make any sense =/ I don't see any way how anyone could have fulfilled Socrates conditions for describing piety here. Any help is appreciated.

[joft]

just make it up, that's all philosophy is anyway

[XxSlusherxx]

It's been a while forgive me, but if I'm not mistaken Plato tended to catagorise things, almost like the scientific names of animals. his 'forms' were basically catagories.

Socrates, I belive belived in all things coming from one common good, at some level they connect.

I hope I don't have my philosophers confused, so please ignore me if so far I am wrong, it's been a while since I was in school.

So a good example of that would be a band Plato might describe the trombone player like this

Music>Band>Brass>Bass>Trombone
he might describe a player as sharp or flat, good tone or bad tone, but that is all.

Perhaps the awncer is that, in his attempt to so delicately and accurately catagorise all things, he is reaching the highest level of his dedication, which Socrates greatly valued.

Socrates isn't nearly as objective. In his mind, a band is a interaction with the listener. where the band can only be as good as the quality of the listener. So even if the band is very good, if the only person listening is of poor listening skill, the performance is not good. For Socrates the ultimate experence is a very skilled band being enjoyed by a very good listener.

mabye your professor is saying that, Plato's forms have reached out to so many philosphers over the years, that Socrates would respect the high level at which they have met. Because Socrates belived that interaction could reach the high almost devine levels between two people talented in a certian field.

lol please let me know if I'm even close, I took that class like 5 years ago.

[Edilibs]

Thanks for the help Slusher and you too Joft.

Yes, you have the correct information pertaining to each philospher. I'm amazed that you remember all of this even after 5 years haha

Socrates isn't nearly as objective. In his mind, a band is a interaction with the listener. where the band can only be as good as the quality of the listener. So even if the band is very good, if the only person listening is of poor listening skill, the performance is not good. For Socrates the ultimate experence is a very skilled band being enjoyed by a very good listener.

I quoted you on this because during discussion someone brought this up, reciting the old proverb, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Seriously, that helps out alot. My professor didn't really get into depth about the theory of forms and alot of these old philosophical writings are hard for me to understand(especially Aristotle, I'm still going 'wtf?' after reading through Metaphysics several times over). Thanks once again.

[XxSlusherxx]

I just thought Aristotle was very harsh. If I'm not mistaken a whole chapter in his memoirs pretains to him not understanding bloodties. Basically saying that he can't comprehend why someone would sacrafice something for someone, simply because they were related. of course some people might say this is modern western philosophy, I think it's still a little outlandish even to Americans. I know it was one of them, but I'm not sure if it was aristotle.

It was the Memoir that was written as a ficticious book about himself whoever that was

[Edilibs]

Unfortunately, due to the quarter system at my school(10 weeks), we only really have time to skim through these philosophers I'm going to have to look into the memoirs in my own time.

We've so far covered Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas and Decartes. Plato had a unique style of writing where he would write stories about his teacher Socrates and the supposedly dialogues he had with others. Out of curiousity, do you know whether or not these were real or just made up?

[Daahan]

According to Plato, being a good and perfect human being is being able to live inbetween the realms of Form and Materials.

Socrates acknowledges the attainment of this status in both the Apology and the Crito.

To fulfill the status of piety, one has to achieve the inbetweeness and let himself be governed by reason. (according to Plato)

[Edilibs]

Ahhh that's pretty cool, but I have not read those yet.

For my paper I'm supposed to write about Plato's form of theory, in it which Socrates discusses what makes a pious act pious with Euthyphro. Euthyphro revises his proposition several times but Socrates strikes it down each time. For example, when Euthyphro states that a pious act is one which ALL gods love, but Socrates believes that he only describes the quality and not what makes the act loveable.

I can't think of a way in which anyone arguing with Socrates could win in this fight. No matter what you say, Socrates will find something to counter with. In my paper I argued that there does not have to be a reason for anyone to like something and that Plato's argument was flawed for he said in Phaedo, that it is piety itself that makes a pious act pious(this just rises further questions and is rather confusing). I've already addressed those problems in my paper, but the question I posed earlier is the one I'm having troubles with(strictly sticking with only readings in Euthyphro, Phaedo and Metaphysics).

What you, Daahan and Slusher, have stated does add more meat to my understanding of the two philosphers but I can not draw influences or information from the readings you guys have referred to Thanks anyways =)

[Carbon]

"Philosophy is to real-life, as masturbation is to sex."

--The Book of Wit