Replies

It seems to me the so-called "Euthyphro Dilemma" is a false dichotomy — which is why one gets such bizarre results from working it. E.g., the total "kluge" between Euthyphro's "yes or no" reasoning, and Protagoras's strange conclusion (as if by default) that "man is the measure" — which invalidates Euthyphro's expectation that the gods have something to do with standards of right and wrong.

At the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro withdraws in frustration, and Socrates' question has not been answered: "How do you even know what 'right' is?"

Socrates' observation goes to the problem of how one can discern what "right" and "wrong" are if the divine standard and measure of morality is a multiplicity of gods who are clearly immoral in their behavior, toward one another and toward man. This almost seems to suggest that a man — Socrates — is the measure, which would validate Protagoras' position. Which Socrates detested.

To put it mildly, Socrates was at war with the idea of man being the measure of anything but chaos, if left to his own devices. He was at total war with the idea of "man is the measure of all things." Socrates/Plato knew the measure of truth and morality in the world of immanent nature could only be the transcendent God Beyond the Cosmos.

In other words, Socrates/Plato were inspired and motivated by the Idea of a divine measure that emanates from "beyond" the Cosmos, beyond the created world. The so-called "Euthyphro Dilemma" does not take this recognition into consideration at all. It functions at the level of polytheism exclusively. And thus it is "false."

For Plato, this God Beyond is Absolute Mind and Absolute Eternal Being. You need absolute being before you can derive, not only the truths of the moral order, but creaturely existence itself.

And this Absolute Being has the "nature" of: the Good, Truth, Beauty, Justice, and Love — all of which are the very foundations, not only of the laws of nature, but of the moral law as well.

Just my "take" on tis matter, FWIW.

James C. Bennett, thank you ever so much for posting these very helpful graphics!

For Plato, this God Beyond is Absolute Mind and Absolute Eternal Being. You need absolute being before you can derive, not only the truths of the moral order, but creaturely existence itself.
And this Absolute Being has the "nature" of: the Good, Truth, Beauty, Justice, and Love — all of which are the very foundations, not only of the laws of nature, but of the moral law as well.

Just my "take" on tis matter, FWIW.

Well, that is my take, too, so you must be right. :-)

"man is the measure of all things."

Man being the measure of all things is what brings us dilemmas which are not. This "man-made" dilemma is the same as that brought forth by atheists who claim there was (or was not) existence prior to existence (what came before the big bang?) but deny the obvious - there is but One Eternal Existence and that is God and all things are included therein. Instead, they want "proof" while clinging doggedly to unprovable doctrines of their own.

I am reminded of Shakespeare's suggestion of "suspension of disbelief."

In other words, Socrates/Plato were inspired and motivated by the Idea of a divine measure that emanates from "beyond" the Cosmos, beyond the created world. The so-called "Euthyphro Dilemma" does not take this recognition into consideration at all. It functions at the level of polytheism exclusively. And thus it is "false."

People will believe what they want to believe. Just because they believe doesn't mean it's true. So, Protagoras was right: the buck stops with man. It all comes down to what we believe is right or wrong.

In other words, Socrates/Plato were inspired and motivated by the Idea of a divine measure that emanates from "beyond" the Cosmos, beyond the created world. The so-called "Euthyphro Dilemma" does not take this recognition into consideration at all. It functions at the level of polytheism exclusively. And thus it is "false."
For Plato, this God Beyond is Absolute Mind and Absolute Eternal Being. You need absolute being before you can derive, not only the truths of the moral order, but creaturely existence itself.

And this Absolute Being has the "nature" of: the Good, Truth, Beauty, Justice, and Love — all of which are the very foundations, not only of the laws of nature, but of the moral law as well.

SO very true. Thank you for all of your illuminating essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

Socrates' observation goes to the problem of how one can discern what "right" and "wrong" are if the divine standard and measure of morality is a multiplicity of gods who are clearly immoral in their behavior, toward one another and toward man. This almost seems to suggest that a man — Socrates — is the measure, which would validate Protagoras' position. Which Socrates detested.

You got to the root of the argument. Plato is talking about the GREEK gods as a basis for morality, rather than the Judeo-Christian God.