Talk:Plato/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

EROS AND SEXUALITY

We need a summary on Plato's accounts of eros as a pathway to knowledge and his horizons and constraints on families and sexuality in the Republic and the Laws. I can forward my notes on this subject to any interested party. Larvatus 20:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

After a quick perusal of the article I was going to inquire how is that that in that whole long article no one has managed to insert even a fleeting mention of Plato's analysis of pederasty, and indictment of its sexualized and mundane forms. Are the Phaedrus and the Symposium scriptae non gratae here? But I see that Larvatus is trying to make ammends. Can I be of any help in this? Haiduc 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Look here Larvatus 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Featured article?

This certainly looks like it should be a featured article. Any objection to my nominating it? Rick Norwood 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Second the motion, all the better if the three red links in the main body, the examples Clitophon, Demodocus, and (form) kinds, were expanded. - Athrash | ^Talk 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Confucius

See Talk:Confucius for discussion of "see also" section. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Plato and Poetry

Plato had a strong distaste for poetry, would anyone care to write a section about this with me? Thanks, GChriss 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not unless i get to write the part about how incredibly important and literally divine poetry is for Plato.  ;) --Heah ^talk 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there are arguably some 'poetic' elements in the dialogues themselves. Socrates is sometimes compared to Odysseus (esp. Symposium) as well as quotations from the Odyssey and Iliad and Hesiod's works being included in the dialogues. In any case, it is not an easy issue and I don't it deserves a kind of capsule summarization to the effect of 'Plato did not like poets'. There is even a link at the bottom of the wiki article to the SED article "Rhetoric and Poetry" by Charles Griswold that strongly argues for a more complicated relationship than mere antagonism between philosophy and poetry: "Plato's remarkable philosophical rhetoric incorporates elements of poetry. Most obviously, his dialogues are dramas with several formal features in common with much tragedy and comedy (for example, the use of authorial irony, the importance of plot, setting, the role of individual character and the interplay between dramatis personae). No character called “Plato” ever says a word in his texts. His works also narrate a number of myths, and sparkle with imagery, simile, allegory, and snatches of meter and rhyme. Indeed, as he sets out the city in speech in the Republic, Socrates calls himself a myth teller (376d9-10, 501e4-5)..." Of course, this also goes back to the (not so innocent and contestable) assumption of taking Socrates to be Plato's mouthpiece for his 'mature philosophy' in his 'Middle Dialogues'. EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Real name

Perhaps it should be mentioned that his real name was Aristocles as he was nicknamed Plato after his 'Broad Shoulders' not forehead. Platon meaning broad.

see the first paragraph of the "bio" section. its in there.--Heah ^talk 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have anything solid that tells us why he was called Plato? I'd be very interested. Another interpretation I heard was that he was called broad because of his wide knowledge - a little too retrospective perhaps. Dast 12:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not known what in particular "broad" would refer to, even supposing that Plato's name did mean "broad", instead of merely being a name ("Plato" as a name was quite common in his time). See pages 21-23 of this article by the reputable ancient Greek scholar David Sedley: http://assets.cambridge.org/052158/4922/sample/0521584922ws.pdf Isokrates 13:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In that day and age they did respect plato for his philosophy and knowledge which helped shape governments but they wouldn't of named im broad just by his exeptional knowledge and for his size, but if plato was a common name then that was probably his nickname, but it could also be a nickname given later generations, after all confucious had his name changed from Kong Zi, also in that time it was normal to say the entire name so a nickname may have been a tad odd, but students have been known to create nicknames, Damien Blackwell

Expansion needed

The article is still in pretty poor shape, I even found typos right at the beginning. The discussion on the commentarists is rather poor and unscholarly; surely the latest currents of interpretation such as that of the Tuebingen school (Reale etc.) need to be discussed, as much as their opposer's (Brisson et. al). A deeper entry on Plato and Pythagoreanism is also needed. Recommended works would be Brazil's Mário Ferreira dos Santos, Burkert's classic Weisheit und Wissenschaft and his pupil's, Christoph Riedweg, recent book on Pythagoras. In following Burkert, that last title on Philolaos would also be of help. and many others. Less specialized interpretations, not as kitsch as Einstein's and such, say, that of Strauss or Bernardette's, would be nice, since they've had large followings. I may end up writing all of that, if I have the time.

I do think that the article could use a bit more work as well. It only seems to focus on the more orthodox interpretation of Plato that is prominent in the US and Britain and ignores the Tubingen, Romantic, and Straussian interpretations of Plato. For example, some commentators (Leo Strauss and his followers) would believe it is a mistake to take Socrates as the mouthpiece for Plato's 'philosophy'. They cite how Socrates often makes errors in his argumentation and often contradicts himself between dialogues. (ex. In the Phaedrus, Socrates refers to Eros as a god, whereas in the Symposium Eros is a daimon. Also, many of the details on the dotrine of ideas are contradictory. In the Phaedrus they are hyperuranian beings, whereas in the Symposium Socrates refers to "Beauty Itself" and does not use the words 'eidos' or 'idea' in connection with his discussion on beauty. Lastly, there is a notable logical error that Socrates makes near the end of the Protagoras.) While some scholars attribute these faults to Plato's own inadequacies (the contradictions are explained as part of Plato's development and the logical errors are excused by citing how Plato did not have access to developments that occurred later in the history of philosophy), some Straussian scholars (and I believe Tubingen as well) would cite that Plato had esoteric teachings and that (according to Straussians) Socrates' teachings in the dialogues are merely exoteric. The contradictions and logical errors are interpreted as a means for Plato to communicate to more privileged readers that more investigation [into the dialogues] is needed. Also, they propose that the dialogue should be interpreted as a whole (including its more 'literary' elements: the dramatic setting, interpretation of the myths, Socrates' use of rhetoric and considerations of his audience, etc.) EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, your comments are among the better informed that I've seen on wikipedia since I started following some of these articles 2 months ago (you're an insider - an academic, I think). I would very much like to know what your summary of Luc Brisson's interpretation, and what he is opposing. I never took the esoteric or oral doctrine to be an reading exclusive to Straussian scholars. In fact, I think a number of Plato scholars who espouse similar readings of Plato would be offended if associated in this way with Strauss, Bloom et. al. .Zeusnoos 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to suggest that the Straussians can lay an exclusive claim for proposing that Plato had esoteric teachings (though I'm not sure which schools of interpretation claim that the esoteric teachings are hidden in the dialogues). I merely did not wish to make claims about other interpretations that I could not back up with any hard textual evidence. I have not given due attention to the Tubingen or Romantic interpretations (though I believe that the Tubingen does claim that there is an esoteric teaching?) Also, I don't have any familiarity with Luc Brisson or his interpretation. I suppose I should come clean I state that I am a mere undergraduate who has studied under Prof. Stanley Rosen, a former student of Strauss. In any case, I'm interested to see what you have to say about Mr. Brisson should you contribute to the article. I strongly take objection to the claims (seemingly presented as unbiased) in the section "Form and Content" which rather problematically states (without qualification) that "In the middle dialogues, Socrates becomes a mouthpiece for Plato's own philosophy..." as well as the claim that "The late dialogues read more like treatises..." These claims do not at all fall in line with the view that the dialogues are primarily dramas, and that Plato pursued the dialogue form precisely to avoid the limitations of treatises. Why is it the Plato never speaks directly to his audience? Why does he not simply include a character with the name 'Plato' in his dialogues instead of going the roundabout way and (supposedly) using Socrates as a mouthpiece? Moreover, I don't think this statement can be left as stands: "Plato also had a position on the art of writing as opposed to oral communication. This is evidenced in his Phaedrus1 dialogue and his Seventh Epistle.2 He said that oral communication is superior to the written word, especially in the accuracy of the oral word over the written word and in his Seventh Epistle that nothing of importance should be written down but transmitted orally." Taken at face value, this makes Plato look rather incompetent as a philosopher, since his dialogues are writings. However scholars have proposed that Plato may have actually believed his dialogues to escape Socrates' criticism of writing in the Phaedrus, that Plato chose the dialogue form because it is better able to cope with the limitations of writing than the treatise. This view is even put forth in the linked SEP article "Rhetoric and Poetry" by Charles Griswold (another professor I've studied under, also a former student of Prof. Stanley Rosen). Moreover, it has also been suggested by some scholars that the content of the Epistles may also be ironic. Personally, I think that the assumption of an esoteric teaching within the dialogue (even as a purely methodological assumption) in interpreting Plato leads to a much richer interpretation than anything that has been suggested in the current state of the Wiki article. Plato is my favorite philosopher, and I was quite dismayed to see that other schools of interpretation (even ones that I was less familiar with) are currently not being fairly represented. IMHO, the Plato depicted currently in the wiki article is a relatively shallow, boring, and uninteresting philosophical figure. Of course, that sort of commentary is not exactly appropriate for a wiki article... Also, I propose at least a brief mention of Gadamer's work as well as Derrida's notable commentary on the Phaedrus...(perhaps also a bit more in depth summary of Schleiermacher's interpretations?) Another consideration introduced by other interpretations that I think is worth mentioning is the question of just how much Plato's philosophy and Platonism can be identified (the wiki article seems to suggest they are virtually identical; in light of other interpretive possibilities, I think it should at least be mentioned that it has been contested). One last point that I'll state explicitly (though just as much can be gathered from my prior comments) is that the putative chronological ordering of the dialogues should be presented just as such - as being in some cases engendered by speculation, and that scholars have contested the possibility of such a rigid ordering (though some dialogues undoubtedly do have some connections...perhaps more on this later...) EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite my intense dislike of Strauss, which has nothing to do with his interpretations of Plato, I agree entirely with everything above. I've read a heck of a lot of Plato but have mostly avoided secondary source material, so i haven't done anything about it. So with your knowledge of the citable stuff, please fix it up!--heah 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only real secondary material that I'm in any position to say I'm an authority on is Stanley Rosen's commentary on the Symposium, esp. since I've taken a class taught by him. Of course, in about year's time I may be prepared to do the necessary work I've suggested as I plan to do independent study under Prof. Griswold on the Phaedrus. In the process, I may plan to acquire a general familiarity with the heavy hitters in the secondary material (Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Heidegger, Strauss, Derrida, Cherniss, Vlastos, Kramer, etc.) In the event that I do so, I'll be sure to get to the nitty gritty of properly representing the differing interpretations. EmileNoldeSinclair 05:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

On this topic -'Expansion Needed'- I have a suggestion for the Biography section. The concluding paragraph mentions that Plato was influenced by the Pythagoreans, Anaxagoras, and Parmenides; I think Heraclitus should be added to that list. Much of Plato's opinion of the sublunary world seems to be Heraclitean in derivation. Aristotle himself says that: "the supporters of the ideal theory were led to it because on the question about the truth of things they accepted the Heraclitean sayings which describe all sensible things as ever passing away, so that if knowledge or thought is to have an object, there must be some other and permanent entities, apart from those which are sensible; for there could be no knowledge of things which were in a state of flux." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book M 1078b. I am citing the W.D. Ross translation. Also see Metaphysics, Book A, 987b, in this regard.) If it is feared that citing Heraclitus as an influence of Plato might be confusing briefly state that this influence only extended to the visible material world. Joe Pomonomo2003 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with tone

All references to "we" and "us" in this article should be reworded so as to avoid self-reference. -Silence 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"We" and "us" are commonly used in academic writing to refer to the state of human knowledge, and the like. It doesn't constitute self-reference, as it's not talking about either the authors in particular or Wikipedia in general. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Philosophy

"The Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato—nor the knowledge of Greek needed to read them." This flatly contradicts the node on Medieval philosophy as Neoplatonism was clearly a major element of philosophy of medieval times. This article makes it sound as though platonism only resurfaced during the Renaissance when in fact, it was wide-spread before Aquinas brought Aristotle into the Catholic mainstream.

The entry is not wrong; it is unclear. No one reading Augustine or the so-called Pseudo-Dionysius (as indeed the Latins were) could be innocent of Platonism. But the entry is surely correct to point out that no Platonic texts (except some of the Timaeus) were known in the Latin West of the Medieval period. Thus there was virtually no Plato at all in this period but still there was a form of Platonism. Perhaps the remarks on the Main page could be expanded to include both these points? Joe Pomonomo2003 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mel's edit

Thanks for a good copy edit, Mel. Rick Norwood 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we must say thanks for the spam he copy/edited and reposted after a CVU/RC Patroller reverted it. --Scott Grayban 20:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Information would be more helpful than sarcasm. Rick Norwood 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain the dreaeery and depressing saga behind Sgrayban's comment: an editor followed our instructions at Wikipedia:External links, and instead of spamming articles with links to his site, added them to Talk pages. A couple of admins immediately jumped on him, threatening him with being blocked for link-spamming (he was in fact blocked, though it was quickly lifted), and removing all the comments that he'd left at talk pages before other editors could see and assess them.

The site is very poor quality, and I hope that none of the links would have been added to articles — but I protested that it was wrong to treat him like that for doing what our own guidelines said that he should. I reinstated his comments, and took it to WP:AN/I. What was really depressing was the number of editors, including admins, who joined in the incivility (to put it mildly) and slogan-shouting ("spam is spam", down with Googlebombing", etc.). Sgrayban was involved in the original harrassment of the editor, and has been one of the most hysterical members of the chorus, accusing me of wanting spam in Wikipedia, and other absurdities.

Not very edifying, but I thought you should know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge and opinion

Quoting from the article: "Another key distinction and theme in the Platonic corpus is the dichotomy between knowledge and opinion, which foreshadow modern debates between David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and has been taken up by postmodernists and their opponents, more commonly as the distinction between the objective and the subjective."

Surely the distinction between knowledge and belief has been accepted and explored by the vast majority of philosophers since Plato. I'm not sure why Hume, Kant, and Postmodernists get a special mention. I am sure, however, that the distinction between the objective and subjective is, while potentially related, a very different philosophical issue and one, furthermore, which does not enter Plato's work (at least in a way resembling post-enlightenment debates). Or have I missed something? Dast 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. In fact Hume has relatively little to say on this (and there are no "debates between" him and Kant, for obvious reasons of chronology); Plato's distinction has nothing to do with the objective–subjective distinction (true beliefs were as objective as knowledge). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between objective and subjective does enter Plato's work (in fact, very similarly to how it arises in modern debates). It is discussed at length in Plato's Theaetetus, when Socrates and Theaetetus discuss Protagoras' view that "Man is the measure". In fact, this discussion arises at just the point at which Socrates and Theaetetus entertain the view that knowledge is perception or that knowledge is belief.Isokrates 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think most interpretations of the Theaetetus argue - whether rightly or wrongly - that this is not analogous to modern conceptions of objective and subjective. See, for instance, Burnyeat, M.F. “Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and Berkeley Missed.” Philosophical Review 90 (1982). 3–40. Nonetheless, I take your point, this could be seen as getting close to modern debates. Dast 12:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

It would be good forget P's ideas and get a better picture of P's personality, social status, &etc and only then review his ideas. -Good luck on that, afraid there weren't too many biographers around at the time. Hypotyposis 03:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

About the "the State" section

The section is much too short.It deals with Platon's greatest work and it doesn't manage to summarize correctly its concept. Also i would like to suggest this:

Protective (Warriors) — those who are adventurous, strong, brave, in love with danger; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.

This refers to the Guardians of the city,who can hardly be described as reckless-"adventurous,in love with danger"-and are the military and city watch of the city.It is widely known that the military forces of ancient greece were made up of the "phalanx",which was an organised,well-disciplined unit that greatly depended on team-work and not on the single person.It was the primary reason for the success of the greek armies on defeating rival nations.Platon would certainly conceive the Guardians of the city under this fashion. This is pictured in the society of the Guardians.Furthermore,the Guardians received the best education in the city, and it is from their ranks that the Philosopher-Kings came. Evenmore,"θυμοειδές" should'nt be translated as "spirit".It means the will of a human being, the part of the soul which is connected with acting in itself,unlike "επιθυμιτικό" kai "λογίκο", which govern the "willing" part of the soul, to fullfill their purposes. So I suggest this

Protective(Guardians)-those who are strong, brave, disciplined and serve the city by protecting and expanding it,the military. These correspond to the "willing" part of the soul.

Any suggestion about a better term than "willing" is welcome.

{{unsigned2|13:25, June 21, 2006|213.16.150.185

willing = obligato "An accompaniment that is an indispensable part of a piece"Kisida 09:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology?

Upon what ground, precisely, do we hold that Plato's works can be divided into "early" and "late." Surely we do not wish to suggest to the reader that there is no controversy on this matter or that a chronology might be established at all. We are told by at least one contemporary source that Plato revised his works repeatedly throughout his life. If we believe that we might analyze the dialogues and reveal some sort of development, we might be guilty of hacking down the forest to count the rings of the trees. I would suggest that Plato is smart enough to elude such analysis.

Jrbennett 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Justice = Respublica?

What is the source for the 'not in Tetralogies' list? Am I mistaken to think that one or more edition of the Republic had the subtitle, "On Justice"? Is it known when this subtitle added? Is there any scholarly debate on this issue? Zeusnoos 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's almost universally accepted that the "subtitles" of all of Plato's works weren't by Plato himself, but were added by in the early 1st century A.D. by Thrasyllus or a later editor. The more reliable modern editions of Plato's works don't even include these subtitles, or if they do then they warn readers that they aren't Plato's. Isokrates 14:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why are 'On Justice' and 'On Virtue' listed under 'Works not in Thrasyllus' tetralogies' as though they are separate works? Zeusnoos 20:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Because 'On Justice' is both the subtitle of the Republic and the title of a separate (though spurious) dialogue. 'On Virtue' is also the title of a separate (spurious) dialogue. (Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if 'On Virtue' is also a subtitle of one of the genuine Platonic dialogues.) Isokrates 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

On what basis is it said in the article that Plato was born in May or December? I know there is a controversy on what year he was born in (see Debra Nails, The People of Plato). I didn't know that anyone was more certain of the month in which he was born, especially given the fact that ancient Greeks generally didn't observe birthdays.Isokrates 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Plato gay?

I heard on the TV he was. Is that right?--Light current 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Plato's works revile sex between men. There is no evidence that he ever engaged in it. Larvatus 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Sigh. Read the Symposium, the Phaedrus, and the beginning of the Charmides, and tell me that "Plato's works revile sex between men." Anyway, pederastic relationships were quite common among Athenian men of Plato's social class, so it would be unsurprising if he had male lovers. There's no solid evidence for Plato's relationships, but I'm pretty sure some ancient sources imply that he was involved with various people. It's anachronistic, though, to say that anyone in ancient Greece was gay; men who were involved in pederastic relationships also had relationships with women. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Larvatus' mention of Plato's reviling sex between men must be based on passages like The Laws 636 and 836b-837d. Maybe there's some reason for thinking that such passages represent Plato's own views (since they are from his latest work and are expressed by the Athenian Stranger/Visitor character, who there is no reason to think is based on a real historical personage) more than those passages that Akhilleus alludes to (where the views are expressed by the character Socrates and/or his companions). But who knows? Isokrates 01:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I say this because there is apparently a gay bath house in NY or somwhere called Plato's

• • • In those days greeks and athenians were a more man based rule so women were just used for babies and chores which is a terrible idea but was accurate, so it was common for men to have sexual relations, also during there was a holiday called saturnalia, this holiday gave men a excuse to give presents to each other and have sex with each other, of coarse this was a roman holiday that was baned by protistant church til the 1800's and now known as christmas, but the romans were the gay ones and less gay during platos time but I would agree that since rome adopted most greek customes then they were pretty gay.*** p.s. the boondocks christmas special helps illustrate what i just said involvong saturnalia

Plato's play

Maybe Plato is the freed prisoner returning back to Earth (cave) knowing what we still question, whats oblique become's obvios.Kisida 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheism category

While I agree that putting Plato in an anti-atheism category is indeed strange and misleeding, it's not true that there was no such thing as atheism in his day. Diagoras of Melos, for example, was an atheist; and being an atheist was a capital crime (one which Socrates, among others, was charged and tried for). --D. Webb 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

correct me if i'm mistaken, but aren't these quotes from Plato?

"Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power....."

"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....."

"No one ever dies an atheist....." --Philo 13:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, can you cite these? Plato did not believe in our modern monotheistic idea of god. He believed in gods, yes, but God? and "Anti-atheist"? I'm not so sure . . . --heah 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Laws Plato argues against atheism, even going so far as to make it a crime. And he argues for something close to a monotheistic God. I haven't got the references handy, and I don't know it well, but its a central section that any introduction to the Laws will cover. Dast 12:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Concerning the link to the article entitled "Are there really Platonic forms?": I'm not sure I can vouch for its merits. It strikes me as an amateurish critique of Plato: amateurish because it makes far too many interpretive errors (ex. is it the case that Plato has a true theory of forms? The highest genera of the Sophist differ substantially from "beauty itself" in the Symposium, to say nothing of the hyperuranian beings in the Phaedrus. Moreover, Plato's doctrine of ideas should not be considered a theory proper: when do Plato's characters in the dialogues give anything other than a metaphorical description of the forms? How do they 'particpate'? These questions are left unclear [not, I think, to the detriment of the author]. Lastly, Mr. Whitehead believes Plato's forms can be rather unproblematically understood through a crash course in set theory. Is this true? It strikes me as completely alien to the dialogues. Where's the evidence for this interpretation?) I don't think the article does any justice to Plato since it gives a rather unsophisticated critique of him and we find that Wittgenstein and Kant are the author's true philosophical heroes. It criticizes "Platonism" but not Plato. I don't believe it will suffice for the student of Plato. When I try to find to research Mr. Whitehead's credentials, I can't find anything of the sort. I suppose my complaint is that I would expect a certain degree of academic rigour to the materials that are linked to the article and not just any links one can find on the internet. Otherwise, I don't see why I couldn't put up my own essays concerning the matter on a website and have them linked to the wiki article. Perhaps I've misunderstood the protocols regarding the construction of wiki articles; in any case, any thoughts? EmileNoldeSinclair 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I share your concerns and think that the link should probably be removed. It doesn't really seem up to WP:EL standards. --heah 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The essay is not terrible as a undergrad essay (C+ major points off for not citing and for misspelling taupe), and the comparison to set theory is something I've encountered before. I think this way of reading the forms (as well as through Wittgenstein) has become somewhat popularized outside of serious platonic studies. That said, the article itself has very little to do with Plato and should be removed since the Forms can be better treated with an historical context. Emile, it's vs wikipolicy for an editor to post his or her own work, but perhaps you could show us what you've got, and if appropriate, someone else could link to it. Zeusnoos 01:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion that I put up my own articles was ironic; I was merely stating my belief that I could do a better job at writing an article on Plato than the author of the link. I do however believe that the Stanford Encyclopedia article links are rather decent and helpful for the prospective student of Plato. EmileNoldeSinclair 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, here is the url for a rather interesting link on both Plato and Strauss: http://college.holycross.edu/diotima/n1v2/rosen.htm Stanley Rosen is a former student of Strauss who has also spent many of his years carefully studying Plato's dialogues: he has written on the Symposium, the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Republic, as well other shorter articles and chapters in various other books (including discussions of the Phaedrus [Hermeneutics as Politics], Phaedo [The Question of Being], and Parmenides [Plato's Symposium]). EmileNoldeSinclair 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aristophanes

Is it true that under the pillow of Plato's deathbed was a volume of Aristophanes, as Nietzsche wrote?

--24.131.209.132 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Differing assessments

I note that this article is rated as both "GA" and "A" according to the assessments above. This disagreement is troubling. Badbilltucker 16:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Plato

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

The reason I failed Plato as a good article is a distinct lack of inline citations (there are a few however, but none that point to references). My advice is to give book page numbers which makes it a lot easier to verify the information being presented. I felt could not be done in a week since it's a fairly long article. See the GAs on other thinkers for more tips. I'll be happy to rereview when this has been addressed. Otherwise, it's a good article CloudNine 19:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Honeyed Words

"Such was his learning and ability that the ancient Greeks declared him to be the son of Apollo and told how, in his infancy, bees had settled on his lips, as prophecy of the honeyed words which were to flow from them."

This is really quite beautiful: I would love to know where it comes from and in what period this myth began. It would also be good if it was referenced. Dast 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The origin seems to be unknown, though John Henry Wright (in "Origin of Plato' Cave" 1906) speculates that the story originated with his nephew Speusippus. It appears in various sources such as Cicero de Div. 1.36 and Pliny's nat. hist. 11.17, so it was widespread in antiquity. Zeusnoos 15:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. Dast 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Charge of Atheism

Should this, "Atheism and free speech in Athens" section be moved to the article on The Trial of Socrates? It would be nice if this article were mostly about Plato.

Furthermore, the central idea a person gets reading that paragraph is that "Socrates was charged with atheism," and that the Trial of Socrates was largely the persecution of an atheist. But Socrates was no atheist and the charges seem more akin to our idea of heresy, impiety, and corruption of minors.

Speedphrak 04:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

hi

I feel Confucius should be mentioned, like a sub-header or something

Why? --D. Webb 19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Life?

I think there should be a headline for the 'life of Platon' somewhere on this article...when I came to this page it was the first thing I looked for.

Plato and the female

It seems to me that the whole section, the way it now stands, is POV. The fact of the matter is that Platos attitude towards women is much more complicated and it is debated exactly what his views are. The section, if it is to be included, needs to take account of the actual scholarly debate about Plato's views on women and present each side fairly. To my knowledge, Julia Annas has presented the best argument against reading Plato as a feminist (but her views are not those that are now included in the section). Others have responded to Annas. This should be taken account of. And even if it didn't find its way into the article, it is just plain weird to have a section on Plato's views on women and not mention women in the Republic (which Annas has a lot to say about in fact, but also those who disagree with her). --D. Webb 19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The addition ventures nary a word on PLATO'S views on women. All I'm doing here is pointing out the two times that the character SOCRATES claims to have been tutored by a female and to be delivering a speech based on her teachings. (I will add, at your prompting, that Socrates recommeds in the Republic that women exercise naked along with the men because they shall be "clad in virtue".) Plato's personal views are a matter of speculation, and cannot be simply conflated with the words of Socrates. What I've added here is simply the facts of the two speeches. Menexenus is thought to be a satire. Brenda maverick 20:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you truly think these are "the words of Socrates" that should not be conflated with Plato's views, then try adding this section to the article on Socrates rather than an article on Plato. Zeusnoos 21:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but these are not the words of the historical Socrates either. And it's not as if we can say nothing about Plato's views. But, of course, we must be cautious not to attribute anything and everything to him that we find in the dialogues. But this is an entry about Plato and should therefore discuss his views to the extent that we know them. Right? And anyway, insisting on distinguishing between Plato and Plato's Socrates just postpones the problem a little. It's still a more complicated matter to give an account to the views of Plato's Socrates on women and then we're left with putting that into context with what other characters have to say about women in order to assess how women are viewed in the dialogues generally (which most people would take as indications about Plato's own views). --D. Webb 21:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that because this is an article on Plato, to tease out his views is a complicated matter and would involve the views of other characters in the dialogue. And, as your said, this issue has been handled by Annas and others. If there is to be a section on this topic in a general article on Plato, then why is it called "Socrates and the female"? This is the only section that pulled the character Socrates out in this manner. For this reason, why not replace this section with the issues discussed by Annas and her opponent rather than a summary of what 'Socrates' said in these three dialogues? Zeusnoos 22:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to do this because the page on Socrates, as far as I am concerned, is pure invention, and has no basis in either history or literature. It is the great writer Plato who concerns me. And won't you pounce on me there, or anywhere I go?! Brenda maverick 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Brenda, I do think that you have some interesting views on Plato's dialogues, but you are editing these articles as though your interpretation is authoritative. Why not channel this creativity into publications and conference papers where you can get the appropriate critical feedback? Many of your edits have been violating the rules of editing this encyclopedia. Recognizing the limits of wikipedia, I hold back when I realize I'm interjecting my own interpretation into an article that can only be sourced with my own OR. Zeusnoos 22:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you would use colons to indent answers :) Yes, I agree that we should be minimalists about the historical Socrates, although I won't go so far as to call everything said about him an invention. There are, of course, other sources about him, contemporary and near contemporary. --D. Webb 21:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the colon just a visual convenience? The wiki article on Socrates is not minimalist, but i am sure that if i went after it as I would like, the legend-ists would come after me. (Shall i have a go at it?) I think we are in the same situation with Socrates as with Aesop and Jesus, where the legends develop a life of their own on a hearsay basis. As far as i am aware, all we have of Socrates is the plays of Aristophanes, and the inferior dialogs of Xenophon. My understanding is that there is no record of the execution of Socrates, and the Phaedo may be as "factual" as the resurrection story in the gospel of Matthew. Socrates is said by legend to be a stone mason, a teacher of Plato, a dead man in 399, etc. But I find no primary sources contemporary to Plato (or Plato himself) to back up such things. Plutarch may have had some sources we do not, but he was hundreds of years later. I believe that all we have is text and we should not abuse it by listening to gossip about it. We should do it the kindness we would any person, and let it speak for itself, and dispel the rumors. Do you quarrel with this?  :) Brenda maverick 23:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, visual convenience, so one can see better to whom you are replying. Anyway, you can call Xenophons writings inferior if you like (and I agree that theyr are inferior to Plato's both philosophically and artistically), but they are significant sources about Socrates all the same. Especially if the different sources agree about something. But we weren't talking about Socrates per se so I will drop the issue here. Texts: Of course we must use our best judgment when evaluating texts. But I'm not sure what exactly you are calling "gossip" about it. --D. Webb 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No record of Socrates' execution? Well, certainly we have no video clips, but we have texts referring to it by Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, fragments from many near-contemporary writers, and a long history of people who had access to many more sources than we that take his execution to be undisputed. Surely this is a 'record' in the only sense that we can have a record of an ancient event? Such scepticism about the historical Socrates seems to me to be pure speculation under the guise of rigour. Dast 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The execution of Socrates is "undisputed" for the same reason that the crucifixtion and resurrection of Jesus is undisputed. Readers take literature too literally (Plato complains of this constantly- that is why he has the semi-literate Socrates recommend abolishing allegory (hidden meanings) in an ideal world. This idea needs to be stewed upon !!!! Also, people seem to need a hero. I'm not being excessively rigorous (trust me on this one). My main reason for doubting the historicity of the execution is actually esthetic. Plato's dialogs render the story of the "passion" of Socrates with a literary finesse that is really not life-like. If we appreciated Plato's art better, we would take a more artful view of the story of Socrates. Brenda maverick 15:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Brenda, Wikipedia isn't the right place to spread the scholarly views that we favour. So I hope you're not about to start campaigning for the fictionality of Socrates' execution. I am not one to doubt Plato's artistic excellence, but doubting that Socrates was executed seems to me absurd. Of course, we don't have to take the Phaedo to be a faithful account of how he died. But there are other sources. He was tried, he was sentenced to death and the sentece was carried out. If you want to persuade people of the something else, a journal would be the appropriate venue for that. --D. Webb 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Webb, I don't need to campaign for fictionality. I think you have all but granted it when you admit that the Phaedo is a work of art and not a piece historical record. If all we know about Socrates is that he lived and died, we don't know anything, really. Maybe you don't agreee with me that all that matters is the details, and the reality of these cannot be teased apart from the fiction. Do you see what I mean? Yes, there was doubtless a fellow in Athens who attracted the attention first of Aristophanes, and then of Plato (who was born just about the time "The Clouds" was produced), but of what else can we be sure? We know that Aristophanes was a major force in Athens, a rare genius whom Plato must have admired. He cannot be discounted as we try to sift for the truth. No?

Brenda maverick 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't granted it at all:Works of art can contain historical truths (and I don't agree that we can dismiss Xenophon so easily). Furthermore, it's not clear to me that Plato held Aristophanes in special admiration, but even if he did, it makes no difference. But, Brenda, you're missing the most important point: which is that even if I were less knowledgable about Socrates and the sources we have to rely on than I am, and you could beat me easily in a debate (and that might even be the case now), winning the debate doesn't help you. Because what you're advocating isn't the standard picture that an encyclopedia is supposed to give, and which it is clear that Wikipedia articles are supposed to give. I agree with the others, I think you might be able to make an excellent contribution to the encyclopedia, but first, you should read the guidlines on "neutral point of view: undue weight" and original research and verifiability and take them to heart (they are quite sensible rules for an "unedited" encyclopedia and, in fact, we'd be lost without them). --D. Webb 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)