nihilism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:04 pm
It's not clear to me.
It doesn't have to be. You're not the Judge.
I have no idea what it would have been if justice had been served on Jeffrey Epstein, what it would have looked like or actually been.
We're going to find out, though.
...can you give us an example? What would true justice being served Jeffrey Epstein look or be like?

Anybody can guess. Guesses are free.

But ultimately, I can't tell you. I'm not the Judge either. But I think it would surprise everyone if what he got was concommitant with what he did. In human terms, it doesn't seem it was. I'm sure that's also how his many victims see it, too. But you could ask them.
So you really have no idea...
Of course I "have an idea." I've told you I do. To me, Epstein seems to have gotten away with too much for us to call his situation "justice." That's my "idea" about it. And I think most people will agree with my present reasoning on that, even if you fight it tooth and nail.

So I have an "idea." But "ideas" can be right or wrong, especially those that fail to include what the Judge of all the Earth will decide to impose.

Your objections will be judged the same way. You may think justice can work out in this life, but whether or not that's true will be decided only when the Judge renders His verdict.

Your estimations also, no matter how impassioned, will be shown as either right or wrong then. The Judge gets the final say.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:34 pm That is the problem right there, and why I would rather call myself a Theist and examine everything theism has on offer - because at least there are inroads to make and data to consider, whereas your position [non-theist] involves purposefully/willfully creating barriers to those things.
I don't care what you think, but I reject no idea that is not in obvious contradiction of all evidence. I have studied every extant religion, almost every philosopher and ideologist, every Christian theologian from the early church fathers to the some of the most modern. There is not a single religion or ideology that I have not found to be absurdly self-contradictory or without any basis in evidence or reason. I only close doors after I've looked and found the room full of squalor and refuse and nothing of any value worth wallowing in.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by VVilliam »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:41 pm
VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:34 pm That is the problem right there, and why I would rather call myself a Theist and examine everything theism has on offer - because at least there are inroads to make and data to consider, whereas your position [non-theist] involves purposefully/willfully creating barriers to those things.
I don't care what you think,

Sure you don't. :D
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by VVilliam »

VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 10:41 pm
VVilliam wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:34 pm That is the problem right there, and why I would rather call myself a Theist and examine everything theism has on offer - because at least there are inroads to make and data to consider, whereas your position [non-theist] involves purposefully/willfully creating barriers to those things.
I don't care what you think,
Sure you don't. :D
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:13 pm
It doesn't have to be. You're not the Judge.


We're going to find out, though.

Anybody can guess. Guesses are free.

But ultimately, I can't tell you. I'm not the Judge either. But I think it would surprise everyone if what he got was concommitant with what he did. In human terms, it doesn't seem it was. I'm sure that's also how his many victims see it, too. But you could ask them.
So you really have no idea...
Of course I "have an idea." I've told you I do. To me, Epstein seems to have gotten away with too much for us to call his situation "justice." That's my "idea" about it. And I think most people will agree with my present reasoning on that, even if you fight it tooth and nail.

So I have an "idea." But "ideas" can be right or wrong, especially those that fail to include what the Judge of all the Earth will decide to impose.

Your objections will be judged the same way. You may think justice can work out in this life, but whether or not that's true will be decided only when the Judge renders His verdict.

Your estimations also, no matter how impassioned, will be shown as either right or wrong then. The Judge gets the final say.
What have I objected to and what "estimation," have I made. I just went back through our whole discussion and see neither any objection or estimate of anything. I have expressed no opinion at all about what justice is. As far as I can learn from what you say about it, it has no meaning at all, except perhaps as an excuse to cause someone pain or suffering.

I'm not saying that's what you mean, but if it isn't that, I cannot figure out what you do mean. Even if it is what you mean, I'm not judging it, just suggesting it might be what you mean. Of couirse, if it isn't, you could always explain what it is beyond those weasel words, like, "what one deserves," or, "whatever God gives them," which unspecified might be ice cream, wealth, happiness. Who can tell, since you never say.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:29 am
So you really have no idea...
Of course I "have an idea." I've told you I do. To me, Epstein seems to have gotten away with too much for us to call his situation "justice." That's my "idea" about it. And I think most people will agree with my present reasoning on that, even if you fight it tooth and nail.

So I have an "idea." But "ideas" can be right or wrong, especially those that fail to include what the Judge of all the Earth will decide to impose.

Your objections will be judged the same way. You may think justice can work out in this life, but whether or not that's true will be decided only when the Judge renders His verdict.

Your estimations also, no matter how impassioned, will be shown as either right or wrong then. The Judge gets the final say.
I just went back through our whole discussion and see neither any objection or estimate of anything.
You didn't go to the right place, then. Here are your words:

"Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?"


The answer to your question is "Yes, everybody knows you can do things for which nothing bad happens to you, at least nothing on the level of what you have done."

And that is where the concept of "justice" entered this discussion. You seem to be saying that physical reality itself imposes proportional "bads" on anyone who does "bad." That view would be both naive and unrealistic.
I have expressed no opinion at all about what justice is.
I didn't say you had.

I said that if you want to make a claim like the above, you should. For a conception of "justice" is implied by it.
As far as I can learn from what you say about it, it has no meaning at all, except perhaps as an excuse to cause someone pain or suffering.
Then it's true that you have no concept of justice, and your statement above, in red, becomes quite baffling and obviously untrue. If you didn't mean some sort of proportionality, then you didn't mean anything at all, really.

For to say, (to paraphrase) "If anyone does something bad, of any size, something small may happen to him that is also bad" is surely both the least controversial and least useful contribution anybody could make to the discussion.

So I have to assume, in charity, you meant more than that. But if that's all you meant, then feel free to say so. But then, you have no conception of "justice" in your mind, and none about which you can ask me, either. You simply don't believe in it.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:19 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm
Of course I "have an idea." I've told you I do. To me, Epstein seems to have gotten away with too much for us to call his situation "justice." That's my "idea" about it. And I think most people will agree with my present reasoning on that, even if you fight it tooth and nail.

So I have an "idea." But "ideas" can be right or wrong, especially those that fail to include what the Judge of all the Earth will decide to impose.

Your objections will be judged the same way. You may think justice can work out in this life, but whether or not that's true will be decided only when the Judge renders His verdict.

Your estimations also, no matter how impassioned, will be shown as either right or wrong then. The Judge gets the final say.
I just went back through our whole discussion and see neither any objection or estimate of anything.
You didn't go to the right place, then. Here are your words:

"Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?"
Looks like a question to me, not an assertion of any view, estimate of anything, or objection. Perhaps you didn't notice the question mark at the end of that sentence.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm The answer to your question is "Yes, everybody knows you can do things for which nothing bad happens to you, at least nothing on the level of what you have done."
Perhaps you didn't read the question carefully. It asks, "Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?

Perhaps some examples of defying physical reality will help:
--Jumping off a building defying gravity
--Drinking caustic soda
--Attempting to stop a chain saw with your bare hand
--Holding a flaming gasoline soaked rag in your hand
--Eating glass
--Continuing to consume alcohol at liver-damaging levels
--Overdosing on Fentanyl

Are you really saying the consequences of those acts are not bad enough relative to, the level of what was done? How bad would the consequences have to be to satisfy you that they were, "bad enough."
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm And that is where the concept of "justice" entered this discussion. You seem to be saying that physical reality itself imposes proportional "bads" on anyone who does "bad." That view would be both naive and unrealistic.
Good grief. I didn't say that. It's exactly what you say, it, "seemed," to be something to you and you addressed what only seemed to you what I said, when I had only asked a question.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm
I have expressed no opinion at all about what justice is.
I didn't say you had.

I said that if you want to make a claim like the above, you should. For a conception of "justice" is implied by it.
I hope you have finally realized I didn't make a claim, only asked a question. I'm still not claiming anything, still only asking.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:19 am As far as I can learn from what you say about it, it has no meaning at all, except perhaps as an excuse to cause someone pain or suffering.
Then it's true that you have no concept of justice, ...
If you mean any concept as the term is used by Christians, in law, or in most social/political ideologies, you are right. It is not that I disagree with them, I have no idea what they are supposed to mean. As far as I can see they are just floating abstractions that identify nothing at all but are used to put over just any kind of act one chooses.

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to say exactly what justice is. What the concept actually identifies and why it matter at all.

I'm not interested in, "examples," of what someone thinks justice is, or where someone thinks it comes from. I just want to know what it is and why it matters, not just empty assertions that it does because it does for no reason whatsoever. (Which is all you've been able to provide.)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:19 am
I just went back through our whole discussion and see neither any objection or estimate of anything.
You didn't go to the right place, then. Here are your words:

"Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?"
Looks like a question to me, not an assertion of any view, estimate of anything, or objection. Perhaps you didn't notice the question mark at the end of that sentence.
I noticed you forgot one in the first sentence, but was too polite to point it out until you mentioned "noticing the question mark" yourself.
Perhaps you didn't read the question carefully. It asks, "Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?
I not only read it, if you noticed, I answered it concisely and accurately, as well.
Perhaps some examples of defying physical reality will help:
--Jumping off a building defying gravity
--Drinking caustic soda
--Attempting to stop a chain saw with your bare hand
--Holding a flaming gasoline soaked rag in your hand
--Eating glass
--Continuing to consume alcohol at liver-damaging levels
--Overdosing on Fentanyl
They won't help, because all of them are merely physical examples. None of them have to do with "badness," the property you actually invoked. You wrote "nothing bad will ever happen to you." If you didn't mean to invoke any moral dimension, then the statement is just trivial.
Are you really saying the consequences of those acts are not bad
In a secular world, nothing is "good" or "bad." They're just stuff that happens.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm
I have expressed no opinion at all about what justice is.
I didn't say you had.

I said that if you want to make a claim like the above, you should. For a conception of "justice" is implied by it.
I hope you have finally realized I didn't make a claim, only asked a question.
That's not a good rejoinder, because every question rests on particular assumptions. And anybody has a perfect right to ask you about the assumptions encoded in your question. If they're dubious, as in this case, it's fair to point that out.

But if all you were assuming was that cause-effect in the physical realm exists, then nobody even needed that observation from you. It's too trivial.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:19 am As far as I can learn from what you say about it, it has no meaning at all, except perhaps as an excuse to cause someone pain or suffering.
Then it's true that you have no concept of justice, ...
If you mean any concept as the term is used by Christians,

No. I mean "any concept at all." You don't think it ever happens.
I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to say exactly what justice is.
You don't believe it exists, you say. Okay, that's what you believe.

You'll change your mind. Just give it time.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: nihilism

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:46 pm

You didn't go to the right place, then. Here are your words:

"Do you really believe a human being can do just anything and get away with it, without any consequence. Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?"
Looks like a question to me, not an assertion of any view, estimate of anything, or objection. Perhaps you didn't notice the question mark at the end of that sentence.
I noticed you forgot one in the first sentence, but was too polite to point it out until you mentioned "noticing the question mark" yourself.
Perhaps you didn't read the question carefully. It asks, "Do you really believe the nature of physical reality can be defied and nothing bad will happen to you?
I not only read it, if you noticed, I answered it concisely and accurately, as well.
Perhaps some examples of defying physical reality will help:
--Jumping off a building defying gravity
--Drinking caustic soda
--Attempting to stop a chain saw with your bare hand
--Holding a flaming gasoline soaked rag in your hand
--Eating glass
--Continuing to consume alcohol at liver-damaging levels
--Overdosing on Fentanyl
They won't help, because all of them are merely physical examples. None of them have to do with "badness," the property you actually invoked. You wrote "nothing bad will ever happen to you." If you didn't mean to invoke any moral dimension, then the statement is just trivial.
Are you really saying the consequences of those acts are not bad
In a secular world, nothing is "good" or "bad." They're just stuff that happens.
What do you mean, "in a secular world?" Is that the context in which you are answering the question of what justice is? If so, what is a secular world. How about answering the question in the context of the real world just as you think it is because I have no idea what, "a secular world," is supposed to be.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:59 pm But if all you were assuming was that cause-effect in the physical realm exists, then nobody even needed that observation from you. It's too trivial.
Please get it through you head (how many times and how many ways do I have to say it), I'm not assuming anything, not any particular context, not any view of what justice is or means, not any argument of any kind. I'm only trying to find out what you mean by the word justice beyond just something that ought to be. What makes something just? If there were no just, what difference would it make. What's at stake, of anything, or does nothing at all depend on justice?

Now, you'll excuse me if I ask the following because you explanations are a bit baffling. I do not what to assume what you mean (as do me) so I have to ask since wrote the following:
If you didn't mean to invoke any moral dimension, then the statement is just trivial.
Are you really saying the consequences of those acts are not bad
In a secular world, nothing is "good" or "bad." They're just stuff that happens.
Since I wasn''t invoking anything, much less whatever you mean by, "a moral dimension," which has all the same meaninglessness as your justice, are you implying any event outside whatever that context means to you is just trivial stuff that happens. That dying in anquish at the hands of murderers or tyrants, burning to death, suffering from cancer, or starving to death are, "just trivial stuff that happens?"

I'm just asking. That may not be what you mean. I have no view in the matter.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 3:46 pm Then it's true that you have no concept of justice, ...
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:04 pm If you mean any concept as the term is used by Christians,

No. I mean "any concept at all." You don't think it ever happens.{/quote}
Who knows if it, "ever happens," since you cannot say what it is that is supposed to happen or what it is when it does happen.

I'm not inclined to believe something that is just a word which is neither defined or explained and whatever it is supposed to refer to is never identified, described, or only defined as, "you'll fine out." How can I believe in something when what it is I'm supposed to believe is never stated beyond some, "vague unspecified getting what one deserves."

One thing is certain, there is no reason in the world for anyone to be the least bit concerned about some made-up future nonsense called justice which has no specific description or meaning. It's probably perpetual holidays, ice cream, and pleasure for all. If not, why not?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:50 pm What do you mean, "in a secular world?"
I mean, in a world that thinks there is no God. There, there is no "good" or "bad," even instrumentally.
I'm not assuming anything
You don't realize you are; but you are. If you assumed nothing, you could not even ask a question. Your question assumes things.

I'm just inviting you to realize what your actual assumptions are, to become aware of them. Why should that cause you anxiety?
What makes something just?
You can't even ask the question unless you already are assuming the coherence of the question. And that means you have to have some concept of what you mean when you ask for "just." If you don't know what you're asking for, nobody can answer: your question becomes like, "What makes something xytlbk?"
Since I wasn''t invoking anything, much less whatever you mean by, "a moral dimension," which has all the same meaninglessness as your justice, are you implying any event outside whatever that context means to you is just trivial stuff that happens.
You missed another question mark. :wink:

In a no-God world, there is nothing, no matter how big or small, that is anything other than trivial. That you and I exist is trivial -- a mere hiccup of the indifferent cosmos produced us, and we go to nothing. You can't get more trivial than that.
That dying in anquish at the hands of murderers or tyrants, burning to death, suffering from cancer, or starving to death are, "just trivial stuff that happens?"
That is what a person in a no-God world would have to accept. In fact, all the empires that ever existed were, on a cosmic scale, so trivial as to be beneath any mention. And all the suffering and sorrows of this world are mere accidents and contingencies of a universe that only happened by accident to make us exist at all.

How can terms like "good" and "bad" apply to any phenomena that are mere accidents? There isn't even somebody who's not himself a complete accident, who can pass such a judgment.

As a human being, if you throw out God, that doesn't mean you get to hold onto concepts like "meaning," "intelligibility," "morality," "justice" and so on, as if you hadn't. It means you've doomed the concepts as well; because deep in your heart, you have to know there's nothing behind them but a giant cosmic accident. And you cannot help but realize that you can owe no reverence, no respect, no honour, no persistence to concepts you know are entirely unrelated to reality.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

"If atheists admit that if God does not exist, is there absolutely no such thing as anything being “Wrong”?"- a quoran

That's the least of the theist's problems....
Rosa the Red wrote:Theists have a choice to make:

(1) ‘God’ decides what is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based on an ‘objective standard’ that is independent of ‘him’. On this account, morality is ‘objective’ but ‘god’ had no part in establishing it; he just passed the message along to us.

(2) Whatever ‘god’ says is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ just because ‘he’ says it is. There is no independent standard by means of which what ‘he’ says may be judged correct or incorrect. In that case, morality isn’t ‘objective’, it is based on the ‘subjective’ decisions of ‘god’.

If (2) is the case, then there is no such thing as anything being “absolutely wrong” other than ‘god’ says it is. “Wrong” therefore now merely means ‘god disapproves’ of whatever it is — and as we have seen from the Bible (especially the Old Testament), ‘he’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time concerning what he approves or disapproves. In that case, there is no ‘absolute wrong’ — there can’t be if ‘god’ can and does change ‘his’ mind. It isn’t possible to change your mind about an ‘absolute’. As soon as you do, you concede that whatever it was wasn’t ‘absolute’, after all.

Moreover, anyone praising ‘god’ and calling ‘him’ “good” is merely saying ‘god’ simply does what ‘he’ approves of (at that time), since (given option (2)) there is no independent standard by means of which anyone can judge ‘god’ to be ‘good’.

On the other hand, if (1) is the case, then there is an independent standard (that ‘god’ had no hand in establishing), which no one can alter and which tells us what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Of course, that means we don’t need ‘god’ to tell us.

Hence, with respect to morality, if theists choose option (2) they can kiss ‘goodbye’ to ‘absolute morality’, but if they choose (1) they can kiss ‘goodbye’ to ’god’ (as the source of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’).

Theists now have no right to point their grubby fingers at us atheists (with respect to morality). They can’t account for it without undermining the ‘goodness of god’ or torpedoing ‘absolute morality’. However, as soon as they admit there are ‘absolutes’ in morality, they in effect agree with us atheists that we don’t need ‘god to tell us what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’.

I hasten to add that I reject both ways of characterising ‘the source of morality’, I am just posting what is in effect a fatal dilemma for theists to chew on (one that Plato posed over two thousand years ago).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

promethean75 wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:41 pm (one that Plato posed over two thousand years ago).
Prom, really: use your brain. :lol:

What are the chances that in the intervening 24 centuries since Plato first thought it up, no Theist has thought about the argument?

That's right: zero.

Answers to what has been called "The Euthyphro Dilemma," (its proper name) have long existed. But you didn't bother to find out.

Short story: Socrates asks why one god likes one thing, and one likes another. That proves that "the good" and "the will of the gods" cannot possibly be the same thing, he thinks. But he's wrong. There aren't many gods, each with different views of what "the good" might be. There's only one: and what he says is "good" and what actually IS "good" are exactly the same thing.

Problem done.

So much confidence...so little reason for it. :lol:
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

Yeah doncha remember we did the E dilemma months ago? I recall not giving you a chance to get out of it. Or maybe you tried.. I didn't even notice. Yeah but no, the dilemma stands as strong today as it did back then. Attempts to avoid it end up being unintelligible dodging like this:

"Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value."

Also, the the dilemma has nothing to do with how many gods there are. The problem is not a disagreement between gods concerning the nature of the 'good'. If you actually thought that, I'm not even sure you understand what the dilemma is and means.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by Immanuel Can »

promethean75 wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 10:15 pm ...the dilemma stands as strong today as it did back then...
No, but that doesn't stop you talking, it seems. :D
...the dilemma has nothing to do with how many gods there are...
Well, let's see...here it is:

Soc. But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe.

Soc. And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature?

Euth. Certainly they are.

Soc. They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences-would there now?

Euth. You are quite right.

Soc. Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,-about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them.

Euth. Very true.

Soc. Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?

Euth. True.

Soc. And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?

Euth. So I should suppose.

Soc. Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion
.

Quoted from Internet Classics Archive.

QED.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: nihilism

Post by promethean75 »

Duddint matter if you got a hunerd gods or just one. That whole exchange between socrates and his homeboy was totally irrelevant. Kay I'm gonna repeat what was so we'll explained to you by Rosa that neither of us ought to even be here talkin bout this nonsense right now.

Is what is 'good' good because 'god' declares it is, or does 'god' declare what is 'good' good because it is independently of what 'god' declares?

The answer is neither. Well because there is no 'god', so this whole abstract exercise is nonsense to begin with. However, IF there wuz a 'god' (or a hunerd), the answer would HAVE to be one of the other... and the theologist is fucked either way, boss.
Post Reply