Socratic Robologues: Euthyphro

[TeacherOfPhilosophy]

I made two Socrates videos using Xtranormal. Click on my name to find my videos.

I admit they are not as funny as Robot Socrates!

[WayOfTheBastard]

I loved this!

[Mrvoodoochild1]

prof schroeder sent me here any one else?

[zebb1111]

@Mrvoodoochild1 dont you students read anymore. euthyphro is 20 pages at most. lol just kidding.

[TheReconnect]

Oh god.

[SomethingiLove]

used this to study for my Greek Civs final. Its fantastic.

[youngidealist]

I recall my professor explaining that Euthyphro and Socrates were waiting in line for the courthouse and that no such initial urgency as expressed by Robot Euthyphro here ever took place in the dialog.

[leachy341]

omg that's so funny

[Linktoreality]

@ShaneequaRayquaza If piety is only defined as what the gods love, then there is no reason to respect it, because their loving it has nothing to do with it being morally right- indeed, it would be the other way around. Therefore, the gods could command that because they love going out and murdering those who are unlike them, it is morally acceptable for us to do the same. So, would you agree that in such a situation it would be right to kill people who are not like you?

[nakedBison69]

Socrates was wrong. There is no goodness apart from G-d. G-d defines what is good. In fact, G-d created goodness in the first place

[krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx]

@nakedBison69 Socrates had no idea about G-d since he lived a few hundred years before Jesus Christ came into the world, so your argument is irrelevant.

[nakedBison69]

G-d was discovered many, many centuries before JESUS ever existed. Our Patriarch Abraham discovered the One True G-d, and really, the tradition of that One True G-d goes all the way back to Adam and Eve, who existed almost 5,800 years ago. Therefore krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkr's arguments are irrelevant

[krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx]

@nakedBison69 It really doesn't matter who discovered G-D, because people in Greece didn't know about "Him" from that time as there were no Jews in Greece during that time. Therefore, nakedBison69's rebuttal and claim that my argument is irrelevant is thus dismissed, as I actually have evidence to prove it. Evidence is this:

/watch?v=PSXxB_FxLbQ

[nakedBison69]

actually, the Jewish prophet Jeremiah taught Socrates his ideas. therefore krkrkrkrkrkr's rebuttal is irrelevant and dismissed, as he has no evidence to prove anything at all

[krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx]

@nakedBison69 Actually, I take it that you didn't watch the video so your argument is irrelevent because A. You won't look at the evidence and discuss it and B. You won't provide any of your own.

Not only is nakedBison69 unable to make coherent logical arguments, he is now just being butthurt and defensive.

[nakedBison69]

actually, krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx's arguments are completey irrelevant because he refuses to look at the evidence and dicuss it and will not provide any of his own. not only is krkrkrkrkrkkrkrx unable to make coherent logical arguments, but krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrx is not just being a defensive ugly gay butt

[krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx]

@nakedBison69 Really, my opponent is simply repeating what I say without even providing any citations/evidence to make it apparent that his argument is valid. Duly noted is his terrible comebacks which further reflect how butthurt he is because he has to resort to insults revolving around homosexuality and aesthetic judgements. Because of his ad hominem fallacies, nakedBison69 dismisses himself from having a valid viewpoint and any response he makes now will prove that he's an attention whore.

[nakedBison69]

krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx provides no citations or evidence to back up his invalid arguments. duly noted are krkrkrkrkrkrx's terrible comebacks which further reflect what a gay ass he has, fixated as he is on his own homosexuality. because of krkrkrkrkrkrx's homoerotic fallacies, krkrkrkrkrx has dismissed himself from having valid viewpoints, proving what an attention whore krkrkrkrkrkx is

[krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx]

@nakedBison69 Lol, proved my point exactly. GG BRO, GG.

[nakedBison69]

LOL krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx has proven nakedBison's point exactly LOL

[NarzissNet]

Damn you Socrates -- you decadent!

[ReconstructedText]

I like the frozen blimp.

[Bauwurst]

Holy Aristophanes! It's slander like this that got Socrates killed!

[jmeelar]

Amazing!! I absolutely love this. I'm a PhD student in ethics and I think this is such a fun presentation of Socrates. His genius doubled as his major character flaw.

[Fzuke]

Shaneequa, do you think that efforts at communication should generally proceed regardless of the implications? If not, why is this a special case?

[ShaneequaRayquaza]

This was hilarious, good job. And I pose this question to anyone who may wish to answer:

WHY CANNOT THE PIOUS BE DEFINED SIMPLY AS WHAT THE GODS LOVE, REGARDLESS OF THE IMPLICATIONS?

[Myushu]

@ShaneequaRayquaza If you're prepared to accept the implications come what may, then define it as whatever you like! But I think the Euthyphro debate has impact in considering in virtue of what talk of Piety is made true.

If we want to say that it's pious because the Gods love it, then we need to ask the Gods to understand what constitutes piety, whereas if the Gods themselves love it because of some external factor, that factor can itself be a standard for evaluation of our talk.

[DoctorFrogger]

@ShaneequaRayquaza

A) Which Gods?

B) How would people come to an agreement about what they love?

C) Regardless of the implications? What if the Gods, like the Ancient Aztec gods, demanded human sacrifice?

[Gnomefro]

@ShaneequaRayquaza "WHY CANNOT THE PIOUS BE DEFINED SIMPLY AS WHAT THE GODS LOVE, REGARDLESS OF THE IMPLICATIONS?"

The answer is of course because the word "pious" has meanings to humans before this discussion starts. Let's say a God thinks rape is unproblematic(Sahih muslim 3371, Numbers 31), we can then rephrase your question as:

"Why can't the pious simply be defined as including rape, regardless of the implications?"

Which should be enough to refute any objection on an intuitive level.

[Gnomefro]

@ShaneequaRayquaza On a more objective level, you're not simply presenting a definition in this case. You're asking for an actual agreement that X is pious. Clearly, this agreement must arise from my own subjective value judgment and not your definition. If all we wanted to do was create a label that refers to "whatever gods love", why not use the expression "ultimate evil", which seems more appropriate for the gods described by Abrahamic faiths?

[Gnomefro]

@ShaneequaRayquaza In essence, the kind of definitional trick that you are describing here is used by religious people specifically to justify atrocities by confusing people's sense of what words mean.

Slaughtering these other guys was "good" because it was "the will of God", but most things people call "good" are "good" for subjective reasons(referring to internal feelings). So it's painfully obvious that it's plain perversion of language to attempt to equate the two by using the same word.

[wizbif1]

<3 The Robot Oracle of Delphi

[NickIzumi]

I love that Robot Socrates is kinda a jerk.

[grimslider75]

+500

[redetrigan]

Got here via Leiter's blog. The first of many, I'm sure!