I need your help!

I was in Starbucks reading Platoâ€™s Euthyphro, as one does if one wants to fake erudition in the hope of attracting any passing intellectual women, men or goats.

Anyway, Iâ€™ve got to say itâ€™s not an easy read â€“ at least, I donâ€™t find it so. I was doing okay, until I came to this section:

Soc. And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely, visible because it is seen; nor is a thing led because it is in the state of being led, or carried because it is in the state of being carried, but the converse of this. And now I think, Euthyphro, that my meaning will be intelligible; and my meaning is, that any state of action or passion implies previous action or passion. It does not become because it is becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes; neither does it suffer because it is in a state of suffering, but it is in a state of suffering because it suffers. Do you not agree? Euth. Yes. Soc. Is not that which is loved in some state either of becoming or suffering? Euth. Yes.

I have a couple of questions here.

First: Is Plato using the word â€œbecomingâ€ in some special sense here?

Second: Why on earth does Euthyphro respond â€œYesâ€ to Socratesâ€™s last question? Why would he (or Socrates, or Plato) think that that which is loved is in a state of suffering (or â€œbecomingâ€, for that matter)?

Any advice gratefully and humbly received, because at the moment Iâ€™m baffled, which rather undermines the whole wishing to appear erudite thing.

Average Rating: 4.6 out of 5 based on 269 user reviews.