I read Euthyphro and Cratylus. Isn't the answer obvious in both cases? It's all subjective and piety and names are defined through axioms?
My own thoughts: Honestly, I'm not impressed. I think this is what philosophy is like when you don't have 2000 years of prior literature to endlessly cite and regurgitate and worship. You quickly come to the conclusion that you can't really know anything except your inability to really know anything. When you ask philosophy lovers about this you get a huge amount of obfuscation and unwillingness to seriously confront the ONE thing that Socrates knew during his death, that he knew nothing other than his inability to know anything.
Why do people pretend that the Munchhausen trilemma can be overcome? Every unfalsifiable search space is infinitely large. I get the impression that Philosophy is 99 % marketing.
Dude it's just spooks lol
>>1390371
I get the impression you're trying to learn about philosophy and listened to some idiot who told you to start with the Greeks. As you've discovered, this is worthless advice. Start with a modern thinker, the Greeks are interesting only as historical curiosities.
How is philosophy relevant anymore science covers everything.
>How do you know it could be a demon tricking you? Or we could be brains in a jar!
That's irrelevant we can't know that, nor can you prove that hypothesis we can observe and act by the rules of this reality of simulation. We can't truly be certain of anything but we can live with 99% chance of being right
>>1390371
There are a few things that we intimately know
Existence exists
Existence follows logic
Now use this logic to form your world view.
What is the nature of existence according to logic? Is it infinite or finite?
>>1390423
>science covers everything
keking rn
>>1390371
You are clearly a poor reader. Plato is a literary as well as a philosophical figure and these dialogues have a lot more interpretative depth than, "Socrates is a skeptic!". The point of Euthyphro was Socrates (as a dialectician) was trying to get Euthyphro (his interlocutor) to realize and face his veiled ignorance. This is a classic example of Plato's portrayal of Socrates' "Maieutic method".
>>1390393
Wrong. There's no modern philosopher who hasn't been influenced by the Greeks in one way or another.
>>1390423
>We can't be truly (100%) certain of anything
I'm pretty certain about a lot of things.
>>1390429
>Existence exists
This is a meaningless tautology and says nothing about what existence really "is"
>It (existence) follows logic
Really? How so?
>>1390393
I would actually agree with this though I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion. What branch of philosophy are you interested in OP?
>>1390429
>Existence follows logic
>>1390429
Does anyone know who painted this? It's fantastic
>>1390371
You're reading a philosopher removed from you by millenia and you're evaluating him according to an arbitrary philosophical position you happen to hold? And dismissing him because he doesn't meet it?
You're reading philosophy the absolute worst way. Idiots like you shouldn't be taught to read.
>>1390371
>Isn't the answer obvious in both cases? It's all subjective and piety and names are defined through axioms?
Now do like Socrates did and give an argument to why we should buy into your position.
>>1390423
This just shows that you don't know what Philosophy and Science actually covers.
Science tells us nothing about modality, the problem of universals, causation, the epistemology that motivates science, skepticism, intentionality, on its own. In fact, once you've gone past saying " these experiments gives us these results" and claim that the results of your experiments mean something for reality then you've already engaged in Philosophy. You can either do this consciously and critically, or do it uncritically and not be able to catch your own presuppositions. Science and Philosophy are not opposites, nor does one replace the other, they are intimate bed fellows.
None of the popular atheists know Scripture well enouh to settle debates; neither do I follow the popular nor do your deluded retarded memes apply to me. My post was antitheist. I somewhat doubt your kind can learn new proper words
>>1390815
>This is a meaningless tautology and says nothing about what existence really "is"
How about you go and read the post again, you clearly didn't understand it.
The point was not to say what it "is", but that it "is". The only way to understand existence is by recognizing what we fundamentally know. Step one is not meaningless no matter how simple it is.
>Really? How so?
First I want to hear why you think order is not existent.
>>1392746
stop
