The theme of the travels of Florence is piety.

For more than one reason, the Passepartout doesn’t tell us what we think about godliness Plato.

It does not convey to us its ultimate or complete view of piety.

However, this book conveys an important part of Plato’s analysis of piety.

Therefore, through the study of the travels, we can learn nothing more than part of the truth, or in Plato’s words, a partial truth DD, which must also be a partial untruth.

However, we can be sure that we will never find the truth about piety as Plato understood, unless after we understand and digest the half truth presented to us not so much in the eulogy as through the eulogy.

The semi truth presented to us through the travels of Florence does not belong to the usual type of semi truth.

The most common semi truth tells us what we often accept.

The semi truth presented through the travels of Florence is not a universally accepted semi truth.

It is not popular.

Because it is not popular, it is irritating.

An irritating semi truth is higher than the popular semi truth in some way.

To reach this irritating semi truth, we must make some effort.

We must think.

However, if we are forced to think at first, and then the reward is nothing more than some annoying temporary result, it is the most unsatisfactory.

Plato gave us two comforts: first, regardless of the outcome, thinking itself can be said to be the most satisfactory activity.

Secondly, if we believe that the result is more important than the way to obtain the result, Plato’s moral character is a guarantee: the final result, or in his view, the complete statement of piety, will be satisfactory and never irritating.

“Yousufu Lun Pian” is a dialogue about piety between yousufu Lun and.

Three definitions of piety have been proposed, and all three have proved inappropriate.

At the end of the dialogue, we were confused about piety.

We don’t know what piety is.

But doesn’t everyone know what piety is? Godliness is to worship the gods of our ancestors according to their customs.

This may be true, but piety is assumed to be a virtue.

It is assumed to be good.

But is it really good? Is it good to worship gods according to the customs of our ancestors? “The tour of shephren” does not give us an answer.

To be more precise, perhaps it should be: the discussion presented in the travels of Warren does not give us an answer.

But any discussion in Plato’s dialogue is only part of the dialogue.

Discussion, speech and logos are a part.

The other part is ergon (action), behavior, action, what happens in the dialogue, what the role does and suffers in the dialogue.

Logos can end in silence, while action can reveal the person covered by words.

The dialogue between Socrates and yousufrun takes place after Socrates is accused of impiety.

The dialogue is full of hints about this fact and this action.

Therefore, it forces us to think: is Socrates godly? Socrates: did you worship the gods of your ancestors according to the customs of your ancestors? Thus, the travels of philander provides us with a dual presentation of piety: first, the discussion of what piety is.

[also] presents the problem of Socrates’ piety.

These two themes seem to belong to two completely different levels.

The question of what piety is is philosophical.

The question of whether Socrates is pious seems to belong to the field of gossip rather than philosophy.

However, although it is correct to say so in a sense, it still misses the point.

For the question of philosophy is whether piety is a virtue in a clear sense.

However, to the extent that man can possess all virtues, he who possesses all virtues is a philosopher.

Therefore, if philosophers are godly, then godliness is a virtue.

But Socrates is the representative of philosophy.

So if Socrates is godly, godliness is a virtue.

And if he is ungodly, then piety is not a virtue.

Therefore, by answering the rumored question of whether Socrates is godly, we can answer the philosophical question related to the essence of godliness.

So let’s see if we can learn anything from the eulogy of Socrates.

Socrates was accused of impiety.

He was suspected of impiety.

Yushuphren was a soothsayer.

He was an expert in piety, but he was convinced that Socrates was innocent.

Yushuphren guaranteed Socrates’ piety.

But yushuvren didn’t know what piety was.

However, if we assume that piety lies in worshipping the ancestors’ gods according to their ancestors’ customs, everyone can see whether Socrates is pious and whether Socrates worships the ancestors’ gods according to their ancestors’ customs.

Although yousufulun lacks philosophical ability, he can be a good witness in this crucial fact.

People don’t seem to pay too much attention to the truth.

In particular, even to say the least, yousufrun’s own piety is questionable.

So let’s exclude yushuvren’s testimony and see what we can observe ourselves.

We heard from Socrates himself that he thought it important to know the sacred things before and after he was charged.

Obviously, because Socrates explores knowledge about sacred things, the accuser believes that Socrates is an innovator, that is, a fallacy maker.

The accuser naturally thinks he knows the truth.

In fact, he accused Socrates of ignorance of sacred things.

This accusation assumes that Socrates’ so-called or true ignorance is careless, but such carelessness cannot be guilty unless the truth about sacred things is easily mastered by every Athenian citizen.

This is true if the truth about sacred things is passed on to everyone by the customs of our ancestors.

Is Socrates ignorant of the sacred things in the sense of guilt? He seemed to admit that he had no knowledge of sacred things.

It seems too difficult to justify his ignorance.

His ignorance was not intentional, so he was not guilty.

And if Socrates is right about God.