(draft written in earlier 2016)
In an effort to train my brain to learn & remember better, and in an effort to become more informed, and in an effort to form an opinion about Euthyphro & Mormonism, and in an effort to consider what I think about the panel discussion for this Mormon Expression Episode, I now commence an indepth study.
The only way I know that this MIGHT make a difference in my life is to TRANSCRIBE the conversation, and follow that by commentary, either below the transcription, or interspersed with a different font to clearly and carefully identify who is saying what.
I'm nothing if not clear and careful when it comes to studying ideas.
A SUMMARY of EUTHYPHRO'S HISTORY/STORY/DILEMMA:
Panel: John Larsen, Lindsey (very Utah accent, Utah feminist, editor of podcast), Meghan (British accent), Dennis Potter ("ringer" & prof of philosophy at UVU)
Meghan requested this subject:
Euthyphro's dilemma & how it relates to Mormonism
Socrates was circa 300-400 BC. JL says "Mormonism was disproved in Athens)
S did not write anything himself. All we know about S is from Plato & Aristotle. S is sort of a quasi-mythological albeit historical figure, like Jesus (!) or the Buddha.
[SOOOOO, if you want to be like Socrates, or Jesus, or Buddha..... DON'T WRITE!]
Because S didn't write, we don't know exactly what he espoused philosophically. Plato used him as a mouthpiece & we don't know when P is talking about P's ideas, and when P is talking about S's ideas.
Most scholars agree that EUTHYPHRO'S DILEMMA is something that S really did discuss.
Most philosophy coursework addresses an evolution of ideas from EARLY PLATO to LATER PLATO to THE REPUBLIC. And that by the time P gets to THE REPUBLIC, he's clearly using SOCRATES as a mouthpiece for PLATO'S philosophy.
S taught through DIALOGUE: S would ask questions of others, and then entrap them in their own words.
They are short, and entertaining to read (as compared to, say, Sartre or Heidiger (?) ).
They (along with Plato & Aristotle) are comprehensive. Meaning, everything else is sort of commentary.
Dennis objects: You'd have to include Kant with P & A.
All of S's dialogues are NAMED after the person he's talking to. Eg, "The Euthyphro"
In the dialogues, S pretends to be a common, not-so-deep thinker.
The Oracle at Delphi called S the wisest man in the world, since he readily acknowledged that he knew nothing. A "blank slate" as it were.
[So, what do I, KRT, do? I know some, but I pretend to know less. This has been my MO for most of my life. I think it's a way for me to a) avoid embarrassment, and b) learn from others.]
The dialogues have P trying to understand some terminology and/or concept. The dialogue is meant to have the person DEFINE the term or idea.
The dialogues almost always end with the person walking off in disgust, saying "You've got me trapped," and S having demonstrated that what they believe is INCONSISTENT. S has thus disproved the (false) belief that the person has (had).
Dennis agrees with the above summary.
Lindsey interjects: She's found this approach useful when talking with believing LDS members. When a TBM accuses you (a non-believer) of something, rather than arguing with them, the better approach is to simply ask questions. They are thus "forced" to define their own beliefs.
John, in his "me too, and here's why" say, follows with a discussion about how he used to use this same approach with LDS apologists. The more sophisticated apologists would never fall for such a trap (i.e., to define the terms they use). But others did "walk into the trap." It's an excellent way to pin down the ideas that they might not have thought through completely.
Lindsey objects to "trap" and calls it a "thought exercise."
John's tangent: It's like the HUMANITIES. They're really great for teaching people how to think, but not so great for earning money after graduation.
BUT IT'S CRITICAL: being able to understand the BASE ASSUMPTIONS we have is very important to be able to deconstruct and understand the "world we run into."
And THIS........ is something that's COMPLETELY MISSING in Mormonism & Mormon literature.
THIS PODCAST aims at pointing out the BASE ASSUMPTIONS (i.e., FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS) of Mormonism, and see how S would have dealt with it.
Lindsey again interjects a question & idea: In her research, the philosophers act like this approach is "new information." Was it in early C? How about 100 or 200 or 500 years ago?
Q: Did the philosophers at the time of early Christianity speak up about the weakness of C?
A: (Dennis) Yes, they did, and Paul replied to them in some of his writings.
Q: So if the philosophers didn't successfully prove Christianity wrong back then, what makes you think WE can have any effect now?
A: (John) This is how we know the BOM is not true. C ran/runs headlong into Greek philosophy, we see this in St. Augustine.
(had to leave for work.... TBC)
No comments:
Post a Comment