Talk:Structure of Plato's Republic
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Merge Tag added[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was merge into The Republic (Plato). -- DarkCrowCaw 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Why was this article started. I think it is kind of a lame way to "clear out" the main article. Is there any precedent for this in other articles on Plato or philiosophers in general? I don't think the article has any real independent features, even if expanded, meaning it kind of lacks an internal, independent integrity, unless it becomes much more specific about possible scholarly disputes about the structure of the dialogue. i.e. how Leo Strauss views the Republic compared to others like Cornford, Hildebrandt and Voegelin and Russell. No hint of this in the article however so far. It probably should be re-added to the main article and deleted.--Mikerussell 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote about 8 points for why this should not be re-added to the article, but accidentally closed the window and all was lost. I can't be bothered to write it all again, but here is the short version: the section is unnecessarily detailed for a general overview on the Republic, the general readership likely has no use for it, it is "listy", it presents three seemingly arbitrary views (unless the bold claim that these three views represent consensus can be referenced), Wikipedia needs constant improvement and expansion and we don't need "hints" to tell us so. Given that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, maybe this article should be deleted, but to re-add it to the main article would be a step backwards. Punctured Bicycle 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not trying to impede progress on any article, but this section was in the article pretty much unchanged for at least 18 months, going to the summer of 2005, with almost no complaints. I seem to recollect it was asked for by some editor, and it worked well enough as it gives a reader a point of orientation to the work, and the varying interpretations. All 100% valid interpretations, no matter how different they are, and cited- (although the correct exact cites are not present, but there is a defacto cite, in the sense that readers have not altered them and it must be understood some summaries cannot be 'extracted' perfectly from the authors work. My point, names of the scholars are attributed, but more exact citation is req'd.) From what you were saying on the Talk:The Republic (Plato) page is that the Topics need to be expanded. This doesn't really touch that. It may read a little 'listy' but it certainly is readable and now the The Republic (Plato) article itself is even more lacking in substance. As far as expanding the main article, all I am saying is that when you have such wildly different accounts of the book, i.e. Poppers, Strauss, Annas, Russell etc., you have a special problem with making a coherent article. Plus, although again, I don't want to impede progress, but the See Also list in the The Republic (Plato) page kind of answers towards the lack of Topic content. But others may have more thoughts, this is just mine.--Mikerussell 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the topics already in the article need to be expanded. I think they are full of gunk and should be pared down heavily to "make room" for important topics which are not mentioned, or discussed superficially (for example, there is not one mention of Homer in the article, even though Plato references him frequently). Moving this overly detailed section to its own page is in the spirit of that goal. I don't agree that it is readable; I find it very inaccessible and simply not useful in its present form to the broad, general readership. If readers do want it, however, it is one click away. I agree that making a coherent article will be difficult, and I am not volunteering to undertake such a massive task, but it has to be done eventually. Punctured Bicycle 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, on one hand, you have a point, Plato and Socrates use him knowing the familiarity the Greeks had with him; they are also critiquing him subtling, and there are many instances of this. On the other hand isn't that a little like asking how Christianity impacted Machiavelli? Nowhere and everywhere. Homer effected everything in Greece, and Plato and Socrtes were trying to overthrow him- at least in the minds of those who he believed had the capability for philosophy, so once again- things get very complicated. But others may be able to see a way where I cannot. Whether or not I agree with you, you have raised some valid points and got me (and undoubtedly others) reading the article again.--Mikerussell 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the topics already in the article need to be expanded. I think they are full of gunk and should be pared down heavily to "make room" for important topics which are not mentioned, or discussed superficially (for example, there is not one mention of Homer in the article, even though Plato references him frequently). Moving this overly detailed section to its own page is in the spirit of that goal. I don't agree that it is readable; I find it very inaccessible and simply not useful in its present form to the broad, general readership. If readers do want it, however, it is one click away. I agree that making a coherent article will be difficult, and I am not volunteering to undertake such a massive task, but it has to be done eventually. Punctured Bicycle 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not trying to impede progress on any article, but this section was in the article pretty much unchanged for at least 18 months, going to the summer of 2005, with almost no complaints. I seem to recollect it was asked for by some editor, and it worked well enough as it gives a reader a point of orientation to the work, and the varying interpretations. All 100% valid interpretations, no matter how different they are, and cited- (although the correct exact cites are not present, but there is a defacto cite, in the sense that readers have not altered them and it must be understood some summaries cannot be 'extracted' perfectly from the authors work. My point, names of the scholars are attributed, but more exact citation is req'd.) From what you were saying on the Talk:The Republic (Plato) page is that the Topics need to be expanded. This doesn't really touch that. It may read a little 'listy' but it certainly is readable and now the The Republic (Plato) article itself is even more lacking in substance. As far as expanding the main article, all I am saying is that when you have such wildly different accounts of the book, i.e. Poppers, Strauss, Annas, Russell etc., you have a special problem with making a coherent article. Plus, although again, I don't want to impede progress, but the See Also list in the The Republic (Plato) page kind of answers towards the lack of Topic content. But others may have more thoughts, this is just mine.--Mikerussell 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.