PQ6

Class Responses and Instructor Comments

>From MILDRED FERENTINO:

"What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious. An action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious. They are not the same but quite opposite, the pious and the impious." Pg 11

>rm says: Yes. So, why is this answer better?

>From A Markovits:

Maybe bec. it leaves space for the people that should be exempted for the crimes they commited. Like for self-defence or whatever.

>rm says: Again, the issue is not so much the content of the definition, but its structure. This second attempt fits the form of a definition, whereas the first did not.

>From Avrohom:

"Why is this a better answer?"- its not a better answer! What is loved by one god can be hated by another god. So, what is pious to one god can be unpious to another.

>rm says: Yes, it's not a finally acceptable answer, but it's better than the previous attempt. Why?

>From KAI YU and WAI YAN:

we can ask the god for what is pious and work as a tool.

rm says: This definition does work as a tool in a way that the previous one does not.

Plato Reading Guide 6. What is Euthyphro's second definition of what is pious? Why is this a better answer?		Back to Plato Reading Guide Back to Philosophy 101 Home Next Question
Enter your response to the above question, or to a previous response, in the form below, or use this email link. I will post your response on the right, and comment if I think I can be helpful. When emailing, instead of using the form, please indicate the question number. When using the form below, if you neglect to enter your name or email, I won't know who you are.	Class Responses and Instructor Comments >From MILDRED FERENTINO: "What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious. An action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious. They are not the same but quite opposite, the pious and the impious." Pg 11 >rm says: Yes. So, why is this answer better? >From A Markovits: Maybe bec. it leaves space for the people that should be exempted for the crimes they commited. Like for self-defence or whatever. >rm says: Again, the issue is not so much the content of the definition, but its structure. This second attempt fits the form of a definition, whereas the first did not. >From Avrohom: "Why is this a better answer?"- its not a better answer! What is loved by one god can be hated by another god. So, what is pious to one god can be unpious to another. >rm says: Yes, it's not a finally acceptable answer, but it's better than the previous attempt. Why? >From KAI YU and WAI YAN: we can ask the god for what is pious and work as a tool. rm says: This definition does work as a tool in a way that the previous one does not.
Write your comments here: Your Name: Your email: