"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ANSWER TO THIS?

neither, the two have nothing to do with each other

>gods
What did he mean by this?

This is why Wittgenstein is important. Your confusion is a grammatical one.

did he ever read stirner?

>So Feuerbach instructs us that, “if one only inverts speculative philosophy, i.e. always makes the predicate the subject, and so makes the subject the object and principle, one has the undraped truth, pure and clean.” Herewith, to be sure, we lose the narrow religious standpoint, lost the God, who from this standpoint is subject; but we take in exchange for it the other side of the religious standpoint, the moral standpoint. Thus we no longer say “God is love,” but “Love is divine.” If we further put in place of the predicate “divine” the equivalent “sacred,” then, as far as concerns the sense, all the old comes back-again. According to this, love is to be the good in man, his divineness, that which does him honor, his true humanity (it “makes him Man for the first time,” makes for the first time a man out of him). So then it would be more accurately worded thus: Love is what is human in man, and what is inhuman is the loveless egoist. But precisely all that which Christianity and with it speculative philosophy (i.e., theology) offers as the good, the absolute, is to self-ownership simply not the good (or, what means the same, it is only the good). Consequently, by the transformation of the predicate into the subject, the Christian essence (and it is the predicate that contains the essence, you know) would only be fixed yet more oppressively. God and the divine would entwine themselves all the more inextricably with me. To expel God from his heaven and to rob him of his “transcendence” cannot yet support a claim of complete victory, if therein he is only chased into the human breast and gifted with indelible immanence. Now they say, “The divine is the truly human!”

Stiner is a philosophical nonentity

Sounds like a fedora fag quote. I would suggest that both are correct.

>the pious loved by the gods because it is pious
This is the answer

then what is pious?

start with the Greeks all you fags

>because it is pious
This is the answer. God would never "hate" the pious because His will is perfect, and piety is closer to perfection than irreverence.

Socrates certainly thought it was the former.

It's the latter.

An ideal form.

>be theist
>trip over your very own childish perception of the world

Why am I not surprised

Is someone always cheerful because people are nice to them or are people nice to them because they're always cheerful?

But do the Gods not disagree amongst themselves, and fight and war over disagreements? If piety is so because it is loved by the gods, then is war and disagreement also pious, and is piety a changing nature?

THere is no god

Ouroboros

There is no logical answer, Plato (or Socrates, if you will) was a mystic IMO, strange as that may sound. Constantly seeking to negate and criticize all beliefs until one was left, not necessarily with positive knowledge, but negative knowledge -- knowing what CAN'T be true. Which leaves a void for genuine knowledge to rush in.

i fucking hate lit

It's from Plato.

Does the tree grow because the seed was planted, or is a seed planted because a tree grew?

UNCULTURED

>Stiner is a philosophical nonentity
... because... ?

Just look at it. He's playing games with language to show its insufficiency and move beyond it. The point isn't the answer, but the process of questioning. It's almost Zen or Sufi in a way.

I bet you think The Republic is just about advocating an edgy eugenics proto-fascist state, too. All completely literal, completely logical, completely rational and as it's printed on the page, with no deeper meaning behind it.

Well Greek gods are a joke, they're more deities. Piety would be whatever a particular god loves. So if war and disagreement is to the satisfaction of the god, it would be pious. And piety is only a changing nature if the god changes.

But if we ignore meme Greek gods and use this on God, it is necessary to think that what is right is commanded by God. Since by commonly agreed definition God is omnipotent, if morality is independent of God, that is God loves us because we are following some arbitrary moral standard, God is forced to comply to said standards.

But of course this leads to another problem, since God is all good, what determines God's goodness if goodness is based on God? Hence the real answer is actually our language is shit and has limited descriptive power.

inb4 he could love some aspects of the standard and not love others. That would be rightness determined by what God loves.

Not a mystic, and the Euthyphro points towards exoterically presented rationalism. If the pious is such because the gods love it, then the pious is irrational, all accounts of it depending on the whims of the gods. If the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious, then there are forms greater than the gods, which as eternal and unchanging, might be rationally accountable. But the submerged point is that you don't need the gods if you could model yourself after the Just directly.

he wasn't taught in my intro to western phil class