Там Дается ряд определений благочес

Там Дается ряд определений благочестия, или святости. В поисках правильного определения они заменяют одно понятие на другое. Сократ хочет разъяснить Евтифрону что он не имеет права подавать в суд на отца если не в курсе что такое благочестивое. Есть идея что при написании этого диалога Plato argues that there can be no such thing as “goodness” (holiness) because there is no feature “which all good deeds have in common”. На мой взгляд точка зрения Платона была неверной. Следовательно, я с ним не согласен. Вы правы если думаете, что благочестивое нельзя увидеть или ощутить, но мы можем это почувствовать.

Результаты (английский) 1:

There a number of definitions of piety or holiness. In search of the correct definition they replace one concept to another. Socrates wants to explain to the Evtifronu that he has no right to sue the father if not aware what is pious. I have an idea that when you write this dialogue Plato argues that there can be no such thing as "goodness" (holiness) because there is no feature "which all good deeds have in common". In my opinion the point of view of Plato was wrong. Therefore, I do not agree with him. You're right if you think that pious cannot be seen or felt, but we can feel it.

Результаты (английский) 2:

It gives a number of definitions of piety or holiness. Finding the correct determination they replace one concept to another. Socrates Euthyphro wants to clarify that it has no right to sue if the father does not know what the pious. There is an idea that in writing this dialogue Plato argues that there can be no such thing as "goodness" (holiness) because there is no feature "which all good deeds have in common". In my opinion the point of view of Plato was wrong. Therefore, I do not agree with him. You're right if you think that the pious can not see or feel, but we can feel it.