在苏格拉底的引导下，游叙弗伦给出了他对虔诚与不虔诚的第一个定义：虔诚就是做我现在所做的这件事，即控告我的父亲杀人，不告就是不虔诚。而且他还以宙斯的故事作为证据，来说明自己定义的准确性。游叙弗伦的第一个定义的错误是很明显的，因为对一个概念的定义应先规定它的内涵，然后便可以确定它的外延，而游叙弗伦此处只是根据自己的特殊情况说明了虔诚的一个外延，而且这个外延是虔诚的也只是他自己的看法。于是，苏格拉底指出他请求游叙弗伦说的是使虔诚的事情虔诚，使不虔诚的事情不虔诚的“相”，即客观依据，而不是从许多虔诚的事里给他说出一两件来。 在苏格拉底的要求下，游叙弗伦给出了虔诚的第二个定义：神灵喜爱的就是虔诚的，神灵不喜爱的就是不虔诚的。游叙弗伦在给出这个定义时，他的潜意识建立了一个前提：神灵的喜恶是完全相同的。然而这是不可能的。从理论上来讲，神灵是人类想象力的产物，是对现实世界虚幻的歪曲的反映；神灵是由每一历史时代的社会存在决定的，因而神灵的原型是人而且也只能是人，只不过给神灵加了一些想象的超自然的力量，但这并不会影响所谓的神灵们也会有意见分歧，因为现实的社会中人们就是有意见分歧的。所以，如果一个神灵喜爱
一件事情，很可能会有一个与他持不同意见的人不喜爱这件事情。而在游叙弗伦和苏格拉底说熟知的古希腊神话故事中，神灵之间争吵，产生意见分歧，互相仇恨，也并不鲜见。苏格拉底正是用游叙弗伦深信不疑的神话来反驳他，比如他控告父亲，会受宙斯的欢迎，却为格若诺和乌然诺所厌恶。但游叙弗伦以他行为的正义性认为在这件事情上，没有一位神灵会有不同意见，也就是说所有神灵都会喜爱他的这一行为。游叙弗伦的说法虽与苏格拉底的不同，但起码他承认了不能笼统地说神灵喜爱
为了振奋游叙弗伦的精神，消除他的倦意，激发他惰弱的智慧，苏格拉底又开始助产，问道：你是不是认为凡是虔诚的都是公正的？游叙弗伦的回答自然是肯定的。但公正的未必是虔诚的，这一观点又是苏格拉底通过类比让游叙弗伦理解的。在苏格拉底的不断催生下，游叙弗伦自己给出了虔诚的第四个定义：虔诚就是对待神灵的那部分公正。苏格拉底自然还要提出疑问：“对待”是指什么？像仆人对待主人一样。神灵用我们做仆人，造成什么尽善尽美的结果呢？又好又多的结果。主要是什么呢？游叙弗伦再次黔驴技穷，只好转移话题，于是第四个定义不了了之。为什么这个定义不成立呢？关键在于如果真的存在神的话，我们只有向神索取的份，试想，一个具有超自然力量的神，他还稀罕从人身上获取什么呢？这样，我们怎么能谈得上对神的公正呢？ 游叙弗伦转移话题实际上构成了第五个定义：虔诚是关于祈祷和祭祀的知识，或者说就是向神送礼和索酬的知识、神灵跟人做买卖的艺术。但是，我们给神送的礼是什么呢？无非就是尊荣、崇敬以及满意。游叙弗伦对苏格拉底的回答事实上引出了第六个定义：虔诚就是使神灵满意的。而神灵满意的就是对神灵可爱的，所以，绕了半天，游叙弗伦对虔诚的定义又回到了被否定的定义二或三。无法得出虔诚定义的根源在于：如果存在神，那么他们由于万能而不需要人类的任何东西，遑论虔诚？如果不存在神，虔诚的定位便不应和神发生任何联系。我认为，虔诚实际上是一种发自内心的自觉地克制自己而有利于他人的想法。
不要用翻译软件好么...
在苏格拉底的引导下，游叙弗伦给出了他对虔诚与不虔诚的第一个定义：虔诚就是做我现在所做的这件事，即控告我的父亲杀人，不告就是不虔诚。而且他还以宙斯的故事作为证据，来说明自己定义的准确性。游叙弗伦的第一个定义的错误是很明显的，因为对一个概念的定义应先规定它的内涵，然后便可以确定它的外延，而游叙弗伦此处只是根据自己的特殊情况说明了虔诚的一个外延，而且这个外延是虔诚的也只是他自己的看法。于是，苏格拉底指出他请求游叙弗伦说的是使虔诚的事情虔诚，使不虔诚的事情不虔诚的“相”，即客观依据，而不是从许多虔诚的事里给他说出一两件来。 在苏格拉底的要求下，游叙弗伦给出了虔诚的第二个定义：神灵喜爱的就是虔诚的，神灵不喜爱的就是不虔诚的。游叙弗伦在给出这个定义时，他的潜意识建立了一个前提：神灵的喜恶是完全相同的。然而这是不可能的。从理论上来讲，神灵是人类想象力的产物，是对现实世界虚幻的歪曲的反映；神灵是由每一历史时代的社会存在决定的，因而神灵的原型是人而且也只能是人，只不过给神灵加了一些想象的超自然的力量，但这并不会影响所谓的神灵们也会有意见分歧，因为现实的社会中人们就是有意见分歧的。所以，如果一个神灵喜爱
In Socrates's guidance, Euthuphro gives the first definition of his piety andimpious: religion is do the thing I do now, that is accused of killing my father,don't tell is not pious. But he also to Zeus story as evidence, to illustrate theaccuracy of the definition of their own. The first definition Euthuphro's error is very obvious, because the definition of a concept should be stipulated itsconnotation, and then they can determine its extension, and Euthuphro here is according to the special conditions that an epitaxial pious, but this extensionis a devout he only their views. Thus, Socrates says he request Euthuphrosay is so devout devout religious things, not the things not pious "phase",that is the objective basis, rather than from the many devout thing for him tosay one or two. In Socrates's request, Euthuphro gives second definitions:pious Gods love is sincere, God does not love is not good. Euthuphro given in this definition, his subconscious established a premise: God likes and dislikes are identical. However, this is not possible. Theoretically speaking, the gods is a product of human imagination, is a reflection of the real worldillusory; God is decided by every historical era of social existence, and thusthe gods prototype is and can only be people, but to God with some imaginary super natural power, but this will not affect the so-called gods will also have differences of opinions, because people in realistic society is adifference of opinion. So, if a divine love
一件事情，很可能会有一个与他持不同意见的人不喜爱这件事情。而在游叙弗伦和苏格拉底说熟知的古希腊神话故事中，神灵之间争吵，产生意见分歧，互相仇恨，也并不鲜见。苏格拉底正是用游叙弗伦深信不疑的神话来反驳他，比如他控告父亲，会受宙斯的欢迎，却为格若诺和乌然诺所厌恶。但游叙弗伦以他行为的正义性认为在这件事情上，没有一位神灵会有不同意见，也就是说所有神灵都会喜爱他的这一行为。游叙弗伦的说法虽与苏格拉底的不同，但起码他承认了不能笼统地说神灵喜爱
For one thing, there is likely to be a disagree with him not to love this thing.While in Euthuphro and Socrates known as the ancient Greek mythology, the gods have a disagreement, quarrel, hate each other, is also not uncommon.Socrates is to refute his Euthuphro believe firmly the myth, for example, he accused the father, by Zeus's welcome, but hate to Geruonuo and Wupromise. But Euthuphro with justice he behavior that in this matter, not aGod would have different views, that is to say all the gods will love his behavior. Euthuphro argument although and Socrates, but at least headmitted that can not be generally said that the gods love
为了振奋游叙弗伦的精神，消除他的倦意，激发他惰弱的智慧，苏格拉底又开始助产，问道：你是不是认为凡是虔诚的都是公正的？游叙弗伦的回答自然是肯定的。但公正的未必是虔诚的，这一观点又是苏格拉底通过类比让游叙弗伦理解的。在苏格拉底的不断催生下，游叙弗伦自己给出了虔诚的第四个定义：虔诚就是对待神灵的那部分公正。苏格拉底自然还要提出疑问：“对待”是指什么？像仆人对待主人一样。神灵用我们做仆人，造成什么尽善尽美的结果呢？又好又多的结果。主要是什么呢？游叙弗伦再次黔驴技穷，只好转移话题，于是第四个定义不了了之。为什么这个定义不成立呢？关键在于如果真的存在神的话，我们只有向神索取的份，试想，一个具有超自然力量的神，他还稀罕从人身上获取什么呢？这样，我们怎么能谈得上对神的公正呢？ 游叙弗伦转移话题实际上构成了第五个定义：虔诚是关于祈祷和祭祀的知识，或者说就是向神送礼和索酬的知识、神灵跟人做买卖的艺术。但是，我们给神送的礼是什么呢？无非就是尊荣、崇敬以及满意。游叙弗伦对苏格拉底的回答事实上引出了第六个定义：虔诚就是使神灵满意的。而神灵满意的就是对神灵可爱的，所以，绕了半天，游叙弗伦对虔诚的定义又回到了被否定的定义二或三。无法得出虔诚定义的根源在于：如果存在神，那么他们由于万能而不需要人类的任何东西，遑论虔诚？如果不存在神，虔诚的定位便不应和神发生任何联系。我认为，虔诚实际上是一种发自内心的自觉地克制自己而有利于他人的想法。
In order to boost Euthuphro spirit, eliminate his weariness, inspired him to idleweak wisdom, Socrates started midwifery, asked: do you think that the piousis justice? Euthuphro natural answer is in the affirmative. But just were not sincere, this view is Socrates by analogy let Euthuphro understanding. In Socrates continuous birth, Euthuphro himself gives fourth definitions: a piousdevotion is the treatment of the gods that part of justice. Socrates alsoquestioned: "treat" refers to what? Like a servant to master. God with ourservant, cause what reach the acme of perfection results? Better and results.Is what? Euthuphro again be at one's wit's end, had to change the subject, so the fourth definition settle a matter by leaving it unsettled. Why this definitiondoes not hold? The key lies in the existence of God if really, we only have to claim a share, just imagine, a supernatural God, he also rare from the persongets what? So, how can we talk about the justice of God? Euthuphro transfertopic actually consisted of fifth definitions: is a devout prayer and worship of knowledge, or is God giving and reward knowledge, God told people to dobusiness and art. But, what are we to God's gift? Is nothing more thanhonor, respect and satisfaction. Euthuphro to Socrates replied in fact leads to the sixth definition: religion is the gods satisfied. And God of gods satisfied islovely, so, around half a day, Euthuphro of pious definition back to thedefinition is negative two or three. Root is unable to draw religious definition: if the existence of God, then they because universal and don't need anythinghuman, let alone the pious? If there is no God, religious orientation should not have any relation with god. I think, religion is actually a conscious innerrestraint and is conducive to the ideas of others.
In Socrates's guidance, Euthuphro gives the first definition of his piety andimpious: religion is do the thing I do now, that is accused of killing my father,don't tell is not pious. But he also to Zeus story as evidence, to illustrate theaccuracy of the definition of their own. The first definition Euthuphro's error is very obvious, because the definition of a concept should be stipulated itsconnotation, and then they can determine its extension, and Euthuphro here is according to the special conditions that an epitaxial pious, but this extensionis a devout he only their views. Thus, Socrates says he request Euthuphrosay is so devout devout religious things, not the things not pious "phase",that is the objective basis, rather than from the many devout thing for him tosay one or two. In Socrates's request, Euthuphro gives second definitions:pious Gods love is sincere, God does not love is not good. Euthuphro given in this definition, his subconscious established a premise: God likes and dislikes are identical. However, this is not possible. Theoretically speaking, the gods is a product of human imagination, is a reflection of the real worldillusory; God is decided by every historical era of social existence, and thusthe gods prototype is and can only be people, but to God with some imaginary super natural power, but this will not affect the so-called gods will also have differences of opinions, because people in realistic society is adifference of opinion. So, if a divine love
一件事情，很可能会有一个与他持不同意见的人不喜爱这件事情。而在游叙弗伦和苏格拉底说熟知的古希腊神话故事中，神灵之间争吵，产生意见分歧，互相仇恨，也并不鲜见。苏格拉底正是用游叙弗伦深信不疑的神话来反驳他，比如他控告父亲，会受宙斯的欢迎，却为格若诺和乌然诺所厌恶。但游叙弗伦以他行为的正义性认为在这件事情上，没有一位神灵会有不同意见，也就是说所有神灵都会喜爱他的这一行为。游叙弗伦的说法虽与苏格拉底的不同，但起码他承认了不能笼统地说神灵喜爱
For one thing, there is likely to be a disagree with him not to love this thing.While in Euthuphro and Socrates known as the ancient Greek mythology, the gods have a disagreement, quarrel, hate each other, is also not uncommon.Socrates is to refute his Euthuphro believe firmly the myth, for example, he accused the father, by Zeus's welcome, but hate to Geruonuo and Wupromise. But Euthuphro with justice he behavior that in this matter, not aGod would have different views, that is to say all the gods will love his behavior. Euthuphro argument although and Socrates, but at least headmitted that can not be generally said that the gods love
为了振奋游叙弗伦的精神，消除他的倦意，激发他惰弱的智慧，苏格拉底又开始助产，问道：你是不是认为凡是虔诚的都是公正的？游叙弗伦的回答自然是肯定的。但公正的未必是虔诚的，这一观点又是苏格拉底通过类比让游叙弗伦理解的。在苏格拉底的不断催生下，游叙弗伦自己给出了虔诚的第四个定义：虔诚就是对待神灵的那部分公正。苏格拉底自然还要提出疑问：“对待”是指什么？像仆人对待主人一样。神灵用我们做仆人，造成什么尽善尽美的结果呢？又好又多的结果。主要是什么呢？游叙弗伦再次黔驴技穷，只好转移话题，于是第四个定义不了了之。为什么这个定义不成立呢？关键在于如果真的存在神的话，我们只有向神索取的份，试想，一个具有超自然力量的神，他还稀罕从人身上获取什么呢？这样，我们怎么能谈得上对神的公正呢？ 游叙弗伦转移话题实际上构成了第五个定义：虔诚是关于祈祷和祭祀的知识，或者说就是向神送礼和索酬的知识、神灵跟人做买卖的艺术。但是，我们给神送的礼是什么呢？无非就是尊荣、崇敬以及满意。游叙弗伦对苏格拉底的回答事实上引出了第六个定义：虔诚就是使神灵满意的。而神灵满意的就是对神灵可爱的，所以，绕了半天，游叙弗伦对虔诚的定义又回到了被否定的定义二或三。无法得出虔诚定义的根源在于：如果存在神，那么他们由于万能而不需要人类的任何东西，遑论虔诚？如果不存在神，虔诚的定位便不应和神发生任何联系。我认为，虔诚实际上是一种发自内心的自觉地克制自己而有利于他人的想法。
In order to boost Euthuphro spirit, eliminate his weariness, inspired him to idleweak wisdom, Socrates started midwifery, asked: do you think that the piousis justice? Euthuphro natural answer is in the affirmative. But just were not sincere, this view is Socrates by analogy let Euthuphro understanding. In Socrates continuous birth, Euthuphro himself gives fourth definitions: a piousdevotion is the treatment of the gods that part of justice. Socrates alsoquestioned: "treat" refers to what? Like a servant to master. God with ourservant, cause what reach the acme of perfection results? Better and results.Is what? Euthuphro again be at one's wit's end, had to change the subject, so the fourth definition settle a matter by leaving it unsettled. Why this definitiondoes not hold? The key lies in the existence of God if really, we only have to claim a share, just imagine, a supernatural God, he also rare from the persongets what? So, how can we talk about the justice of God? Euthuphro transfertopic actually consisted of fifth definitions: is a devout prayer and worship of knowledge, or is God giving and reward knowledge, God told people to dobusiness and art. But, what are we to God's gift? Is nothing more thanhonor, respect and satisfaction. Euthuphro to Socrates replied in fact leads to the sixth definition: religion is the gods satisfied. And God of gods satisfied islovely, so, around half a day, Euthuphro of pious definition back to thedefinition is negative two or three. Root is unable to draw religious definition: if the existence of God, then they because universal and don't need anythinghuman, let alone the pious? If there is no God, religious orientation should not have any relation with god. I think, religion is actually a conscious innerrestraint and is conducive to the ideas of others.
温馨提示：答案为网友推荐，仅供参考
第1个回答 2013-12-09
In Socrates's guidance, Euthuphro gives the first definition of his piety and impious: religion is do the thing I do now, that is accused of killing my father, don't tell is not pious.
But he also to Zeus story as evidence, to illustrate the accuracy of the definition of their own. The first definition Euthuphro's error is very obvious, because the definition of a concept should be stipulated its connotation, and then they can determine its extension, and Euthuphro here is according to the special conditions that an epitaxial pious, but this extension is a devout he only their views. Thus, Socrates says he request Euthuphro say is so devout devout religious things, not the things not pious "phase", that is the objective basis, rather than from the many devout thing for him to say one or two. In Socrates's request, Euthuphro gives second definitions: pious Gods love is sincere, God does not love is not good. Euthuphro given in this definition, his subconscious established a premise: God likes and dislikes are identical.
However, this is not possible. Theoretically speaking, the gods is a product of human imagination, is a reflection of the real world illusory; God is decided by every historical era of social existence, and thus the gods prototype is and can only be people, but to God with some imaginary super natural power, but this will not affect the so-called gods will also have differences of opinions, because people in realistic society is a difference of opinion. So, if a god like one thing, may have a different opinions and his people not love this thing.
While in Euthuphro and Socrates known as the ancient Greek mythology, the gods have a disagreement, quarrel, hate each other, is also not uncommon. Socrates is to refute his Euthuphro believe firmly the myth, for example, he accused the father, by Zeus's welcome, but hate to Geruonuo and Wu promise. But Euthuphro with justice he behavior that in this matter, not a God would have different views, that is to say all the gods will love his behavior. Euthuphro argument although and Socrates, but at least he admitted that can not be generally said that God loves to hearten Euthuphro spirit, eliminate his weariness, inspired him to idle weak wisdom, Socrates started midwifery, asked: do you think that the pious is justice? Euthuphro natural answer is in the affirmative. But just were not sincere, this view is Socrates by analogy let Euthuphro understanding. In Socrates continuous birth, Euthuphro himself gives fourth definitions: a pious devotion is the treatment of the gods that part of justice. Socrates also questioned: "treat" refers to what? Like a servant to master. God with our servant, cause what reach the acme of perfection results? Better and results. Is what? Euthuphro again be at one's wit's end, had to change the subject, so the fourth definition settle a matter by leaving it unsettled.
Why this definition does not hold? The key lies in the existence of God if really, we only have to claim a share, just imagine, a supernatural God, he also rare from the person gets what? So, how can we talk about the justice of God? Euthuphro transfer topic actually consisted of fifth definitions: is a devout prayer and worship of knowledge, or is God giving and reward knowledge, God told people to do business and art. But, what are we to God's gift? Is nothing more than honor, respect and satisfaction. Euthuphro to Socrates replied in fact leads to the sixth definition: religion is the gods satisfied. And God of gods satisfied is lovely, so, around half a day, Euthuphro of pious definition back to the definition is negative two or three. Root is unable to draw religious definition: if the existence of God, then they because universal and don't need anything human, let alone the pious? If there is no God, religious orientation should not have any relation with god. I think, religion is actually a conscious inner restraint and is conducive to the ideas of others.
But he also to Zeus story as evidence, to illustrate the accuracy of the definition of their own. The first definition Euthuphro's error is very obvious, because the definition of a concept should be stipulated its connotation, and then they can determine its extension, and Euthuphro here is according to the special conditions that an epitaxial pious, but this extension is a devout he only their views. Thus, Socrates says he request Euthuphro say is so devout devout religious things, not the things not pious "phase", that is the objective basis, rather than from the many devout thing for him to say one or two. In Socrates's request, Euthuphro gives second definitions: pious Gods love is sincere, God does not love is not good. Euthuphro given in this definition, his subconscious established a premise: God likes and dislikes are identical.
However, this is not possible. Theoretically speaking, the gods is a product of human imagination, is a reflection of the real world illusory; God is decided by every historical era of social existence, and thus the gods prototype is and can only be people, but to God with some imaginary super natural power, but this will not affect the so-called gods will also have differences of opinions, because people in realistic society is a difference of opinion. So, if a god like one thing, may have a different opinions and his people not love this thing.
While in Euthuphro and Socrates known as the ancient Greek mythology, the gods have a disagreement, quarrel, hate each other, is also not uncommon. Socrates is to refute his Euthuphro believe firmly the myth, for example, he accused the father, by Zeus's welcome, but hate to Geruonuo and Wu promise. But Euthuphro with justice he behavior that in this matter, not a God would have different views, that is to say all the gods will love his behavior. Euthuphro argument although and Socrates, but at least he admitted that can not be generally said that God loves to hearten Euthuphro spirit, eliminate his weariness, inspired him to idle weak wisdom, Socrates started midwifery, asked: do you think that the pious is justice? Euthuphro natural answer is in the affirmative. But just were not sincere, this view is Socrates by analogy let Euthuphro understanding. In Socrates continuous birth, Euthuphro himself gives fourth definitions: a pious devotion is the treatment of the gods that part of justice. Socrates also questioned: "treat" refers to what? Like a servant to master. God with our servant, cause what reach the acme of perfection results? Better and results. Is what? Euthuphro again be at one's wit's end, had to change the subject, so the fourth definition settle a matter by leaving it unsettled.
Why this definition does not hold? The key lies in the existence of God if really, we only have to claim a share, just imagine, a supernatural God, he also rare from the person gets what? So, how can we talk about the justice of God? Euthuphro transfer topic actually consisted of fifth definitions: is a devout prayer and worship of knowledge, or is God giving and reward knowledge, God told people to do business and art. But, what are we to God's gift? Is nothing more than honor, respect and satisfaction. Euthuphro to Socrates replied in fact leads to the sixth definition: religion is the gods satisfied. And God of gods satisfied is lovely, so, around half a day, Euthuphro of pious definition back to the definition is negative two or three. Root is unable to draw religious definition: if the existence of God, then they because universal and don't need anything human, let alone the pious? If there is no God, religious orientation should not have any relation with god. I think, religion is actually a conscious inner restraint and is conducive to the ideas of others.
第2个回答 2013-12-09
8级也不能掩盖名不副实的本质啊。
lz，像这么长的文章，难以想象谁有闲心给你高质量的翻译。
有2种方法解决，一个是分成很多段，比如10段，分发10个问题，也许几句话还是有人乐意翻译一下的。
二是，自己翻译，把自己翻译不通的发上来，当然也是几句和一小段。
lz，像这么长的文章，难以想象谁有闲心给你高质量的翻译。
有2种方法解决，一个是分成很多段，比如10段，分发10个问题，也许几句话还是有人乐意翻译一下的。
二是，自己翻译，把自己翻译不通的发上来，当然也是几句和一小段。
