Abstract
That 'what all the gods love is holy (pious) and, on the other hand, what they all hate is unholy (impious)' is not an adequate account of the holy. The key to understanding the argument is found to rest in the epagogai and in the principle of substitutibility employed later in socrates' argument. I contend that not only is socrates' argument valid, but it is capable of application to a large class of accounts both theological and sociological.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
APA
Paxson, T. d. (1972). Plato’s Euthyphro 10a To 11b. Phronesis, 17, 171–190.
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.
Already have an account? Sign in
Sign up for free