Talk:Plato

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives
Pre-July 2004

July 2004-Dec. 2005 Jan. 2006-Dec. 2006
Good article Plato was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 28, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Plato as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] citation

Well I think you need to quote a lot of the statements you make with the proper citations. There is a lot of unqualified conclusions! I am quite new to this place, so I don't know if can alter anything. But for now, I will just grumble a little about how bad this, and a lot of other classical articles are made in relation to the proper scholarly way. And still I like Wikipedia because it is improving day for day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonPloug (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] water clock

i can't seem to find anything about a water clock but it's plastered all over my worksheet!--70.231.161.88 (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So cryptic that it must be insightful … I think you were looking for Talk:Aristotle. RJC Talk 02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His real name was Aristocles?

"Plato ... whose real name is believed to have been Aristocles". What is the source for that? All my ancyvlopedias (and they are good once:"Britannica" and two Greeks:"Papyrus" and "Helios") say nothing! I think some sources should be provided; otherwise, I intend to remove this info from the lead.--Yannismarou 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The source for this is Diogenes Laertius 3.4. The information belongs in the article, but probably not in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Aristocles business needs to go, but disagree that Plaot's bio is of overarching importance, and for two reasons: the facts of his life are not surely known, and in any case, Plato is celebrated not for who he was or where he went but for what he wrote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.217.93 (talk • contribs).

I may remove it from the lead, and place it somewhere in the biographic sections. Maybe within the scope of a thorough rewriting of the article (which IMO, as it is now, it is a terrible mess). Answer to User:65.19.217.93: this article is about a person, and, therefore, it is first and foremost biographic. I know that also other things, such as his writings, literature and philosophy, do matter and are indeed important, but everything starts with his life and biography. This is the structure I've seen in all the FA and GA biographic articles of Wikipedia, and I, really, do not understand why this article should be an exception.--Yannismarou 15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Every thinker has a biography, even if just an 'intellectual biography'; and we know more about Plato from ancient sources than just the dialogues. I have the inside scoop on a new introductory book to Plato that will be published later this year. It would be a perfect source to ground this article - alas, it's not yet available. Zeusnoos 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this debate is pretty much over in contemporary scholarship. See J.A. Notopoulos, "The Name of Plato," _Classical Philology_, 34(2): Apr1939, 135-45. Notopoulos argues that recent inscriptions discovered cast doubt on Diogenes Laertius and subsequent biographers. In short, because there isn't any reliable evidence that "Plato" was given to Plato because of his physical features (which is the story in Diogenes' _Life_--actually it's one of three tales re Plato's name) we can't really say what Plato's original name was. Nor can we say that his original name wasn't Plato. Nothing that I've read suggests that this 1939 article's thesis has been contested, so I think it would be best to remove the reference to Aritocles all together.Garbopash 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article is going to mention Notopoulos's views on names, there must be a footnote in the article! It shouldn't just say some "21st century scholars". Frankly, I think it is more likely that Diogenes was correct, and that Notopoulos has scant data on his side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKamaila (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be an absolute absurdity in any case to eliminate references to Aristocles and the problems surrounding the name! If that happens, then this is no longer a biography of the person known as Plato, but something very differenet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKamaila (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you that we shouldn't completely remove the reference. That's fine; I was wrong. But I don't think it would be an "absolute absurdity" to do so. If we know that the name Aristocles was attributed to him after he died, then--sure--that's part of his "biography" but only in the sense that it was something "written" about his "life" and falsely so. I do not agree that Notopoulos' data is scant, and I would be interested in hearing exactly why you think that Diogenes was probably correct. All I am saying is that there is much more that we might say about Plato's life that has more credibility and is more interesting (e.g. it is nowhere mentioned that Plato was sold into slavery, as reported in the Seventh Letter which is basically agreed to be Plato's). There is no need to include information that is generally agreed to be false, unless the opinion of its falsity is clearly stated (as it is now).Garbopash (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death?

Am I missing something, or is there no details on his death (aside from the date)? --Zeno McDohl (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Why?! Is there any proper biography in general?! See my above comments.--Yannismarou 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
We cannot even be sure the date itself is correct. 387 comes from Diogenes Laertius 3.2; his source is Hermippus of Smyrna. Diogenes actually relates a further detail: according to Hermippus, Plato died at a marriage celebration. But Diogenes immediately (3.3) suggests another date for Plato's death, based on a statement by Neanthes of Cyzicus that Plato died at age 84 instead of 82. Neither source is too reliable: Of Hermippus the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.) says, "He revelled in falsified sensationalism, particualarly in death scenes"; and, of Neanthes, "His accuracy is unreliable." Isokrates 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There seem not to be very many life details about Plato, in general, in this article. Did he ever marry? Why not? Did he take lovers? I'm guessing this is all unknown. He managed to keep private. Of the sources mentioned (the people who spoke to Diogenes), they are the best we have, and I'd suggest that they are as reliable as most similar historical sources. The marriage scene is as close as we'll get to the real story.

If you can't be sure of the death, can you be sure that he actually existed? Yes, his works are out there but could it have been attributed to someone else? User4231 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] odd timeline etc

First, Aristotle commentors often make the case that it was the scholastics who were dogmatic with what were only notes for discusion, that dialogue was his true means and that he was anything but dogmatic himself. Try reading him from that perspective and you will probably be able to find some gems.

Now this timeline... I'm not sure about parts. Please correct it if you can. But first... Aristotle's "the Athenean Constitution" (qv) tells a tale of great struggles between two parties, let's call them "aristos" and " demos". Alcibiades was saved by Soc ( who got to know Thucydides rather well at that battle apparently...) and party of aristos was a Very busy boy. Eugenics was revived in the US, with its race problems ( slaves and the genocide of the first Americans, interesting subject that ) and now there is all this damn Leo Straussian crapola as we enter a period of declining resources ( OIL ). So there are some rather important reasons to getting this old stuff right and getting the message out.

Minor intervention: I've not studied The Athenian Constitution in anything resembling detail, but I did read it for an undergraduate Greek history class (at Seattle University taught by David W. Madsen, for those interested) wherein the professor told us that the text was in fact probably not written by Aristotle. I'm not sure whether or how much this might change the tenor of the debate, but I think it's worth sharing. Also, if anyone can confirm or disconfirm my former professor's contention, please—by all means—do so. Job L 09:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If the authorship of Aristotle's Atheniensium respublica has been contested, it is a minority view (I can't find an mention of such disputation in the scholarship. Could your professor be confusing this with a work by the same title, originally attributed to Xenophon, now contested? Zeusnoos 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to give this work a non-English title, it would be Athenaion Politeia, or Ath. Pol. for short, and its authenticity is disputed--the Oxford Classical Dictionary notes that "the work is more probably to be attributed to a pupil" rather than to Aristotle himself. What relevance this has to the Plato article I don't know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Needed

I'm not sure how to institute one, but there has been some vandalism here (See Works and "How's it going, gorav" sections). Ted 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plato One and Plato Two

I wrote this text for use in scientifical discussions.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/plato.asp
Plato's metaphysics divides the world into two distinct aspects: the intelligible world of "forms" and the perceptual world we see around us.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Plato One = Plato1 = One = 1
actual, authentic, concrete things, definite, existing, genuine, indisputable, legitimate, material, observations, organes of sense, perception, physical, solid, tangible, true, unadulterated, valid

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Plato Two = Plato2 = Two = 2
abstract, accepted, agreed, bizarre, fictive, hypothetic, idea, illusory, imaginary, imaginated, mathematical prediction, mind, otherworldly, surreal, thinked out, trancelike, unexisting, unmaterial, unreal, weird
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mix
One and Two should not be mixed ! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[edit] Loeb edition

Why does the Loeb edition get a special mention - it would be nice to have references to popular editions but probably on another page ! 89.245.75.24 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Anon (but hopefully uncontroversial) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which comes first ? The hen or the egg ? The perception or the idea ? Plato One or Plato Two ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
Discovered on September 23, 1846, Neptune is notable for being the first planet
discovered based on mathematical prediction rather than regular observations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tsi43318 08:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BC --> BCE

This isn't really a big problem in this article, but there are jumps from BC to BCE. I think they should all be converted into BCE. Blu Shu0 21:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy is to use whichever system was first used in the article. See WP:DATE#Eras. For this article, that's BC, which was used in the very first version of this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd policy. It needs to be reviewed by whoever reviews such policies.

That's an odd statement. It needs to be reviewed by whoever reviews such statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Higher Learning Institution?

Just a small point, the Academy in Athens was preceeded by another, Sophist inspired, academy by Isocretes - one of Plato's contemporaries. Don't want to be pedantic but it's useful to know that Plato wasn't the only pioneer of further education.


172.142.47.9 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Jack Blumenau, 30/3/07 172.142.47.9 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Isocrates' survive his death? RJC Talk 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bench Mark of Philosophy

I think that it would be great if someone (not me) changed this article to stress that Platos work was a bench mark in the history of philosophy. FluteBoy 15 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)FluteBoy_15FluteBoy 15 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


No kidding! There needs to be a much wider assessment of Plato as a philosopher. Anyone? DrKamaila (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)DrKamaila

I was just skimming through the article, the section on his metaphysics is terrible, I mean really really bad. I'm not volunteering though. Need to get a few people together and talking about how to sort it all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation

I'm aware of the existence of wikiquote, but am placing this enquiry here for greater visibilty. Does anyone know if Plato ever actually wrote the phrase (or something equivalent) to "It was a wise man who invented god?" It's frequently attributed to him, and you can commonly see at bars and pubs a derivation of it ("It was a wise man who invented beer"). I cannot find a source for this, and have strong suspicions that it has been misattributed. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Thanks. Keen Machine 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The first phrase looks very close to a line in the Sisyphus fragment, not something by Plato. Plato actually appears to be using the Athenian Stranger, in his Laws 889-890, to criticize the point. It's equally doubtful that the phrase about beer was Plato's since the ancient Greeks generally did not drink it and had little taste for it; ancient Greeks generally much preferred wine (greatly diluted with water), considering beer characteristic of barbarians.[1] However, the quote may be derived from something Plato said of wine; in the first books of the Laws there is a lot of discussion of the utility of wine. But, to my knowledge, nowhere in Plato is the invention of wine attributed to any man; mostly Plato's characters respect traditon - that wine is due to Dionysus (see especially the Laws 672). Isokrates 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete section

Specifically 'The question of Socratic literacy' - interesting enough, but belongs in an article on Socrates, not on Plato. Inebriatedonkey 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "metaphysics" section

in this section are we talking about socrates or plato??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.8.185.87 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

This section is fairly inaccurate, and contains a lot of original (or at least uncited and uncredited) research. At the very least, there is a rather grave misreading of Republic going on. -75.3.29.191 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, it's absolutely appalling, not just a misreading of the Republic, or even of Plato, a misreading of any text on metaphysics. It's part of a bigger problem with this article - that the discussion on Plato's philosophy is amateurish at best and severely misleading at worst.

[edit] Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think in the case of Plato in particular it is a bit crazy to have an "influenced" section. We are all influenced by Plato.

"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 1929

--Fmarkham (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plato or Socrates?

A lot of this article is about Socrates. I realise that Plato used his writings about Socrates to articulate his own views, but it's quite confusing to come looking for info about Plato and find more here about his teacher. In fact in some places the text slips easily between the two of them as if they were the same person! Can we take out information that's covered in the Socrates article? 163.1.68.177 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The two figures are simply too tightly interweaved to separate them. In Plato's entire corpus only a handful of dialogues do not have 'Socrates' as the main speaker. Now, whether this Socrates presents the historical Socrates' view or Plato's view is an interpretive problem. There is some agreement that the early dialogue 'Socrates' represents - somewhat - the historical Socrates and the middle and later dialogue 'Socrates' represents Plato's views. But even then, there is nothing stopping us saying that the early dialogue 'Socrates' also represents Plato's view. And, on the other hand, some question whether Plato's view should ever be taken to be identical to the view of the main speaker in his dialogues. Anyway, you get the picture. The best that can be done is making it clear in the article that 'Socrates' is elliptical for 'the character Socrates in Plato's dialogues'. Dast 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think that would be helpful. Do you think the section on 'the question of Socratic literacy' belongs here? It seems to me to be more about Socrates (real person rather than character) and not really directly to do with Plato. I think it would be better in the Socrates article rather than here. (Forgot to sign in earlier!) Anichan 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference or citation on why there's an interpretive problem here? I've never seen anyone ever question that any reference to Socrates in Plato's dialogues is actually Socrates' views. As far as I've ever seen, the Socrates character is always assumed to just Plato speaking through his teacher. AnarchyElmo 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can say that Leo Strauss discusses the problem of taking Socrates for Plato's mouthpiece in The City and Man. E.g., what does it mean to choose as one's spokesman someone reputed for irony? What are we to make of the Sophist or the Statesman, where Socrates is a minor character; the Laws, where he isn't present; or the Parmenides, where Socrates is clearly beaten? Etc. RJC Talk 23:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of a single scholar who doesn't find it an important interpretive problem. It even has it's own name: The problem of Socrates. Any introduction to Socrates will discuss this and of course there are numerous papers. For instance Brickhouse and Smith's The Philosophy of Socrates. Gregory Vlastos was probably the scholar who kick started the modern debate, see for example his Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philospoher. Dast 12:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socratic Literacy

I recommend that someone removes the passage claiming Socrates may have been only semi-literate. While it is true that in Phaedo 97c Socrates misunderstands a doctrine of Anaxagoras because he hears it read out loud, it is explicitly stated at 98bc that he learnt of his misunderstanding when he later read the book for himself. This rules out the possibility that Plato was hinting in this dialogue that Socrates couldn't read. 131.111.8.104 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I second. Xenophon also talks of Socrates and his associates reading philosophical works together. Dast 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Some of the issues that section covered might be worth having in the article, but not in that form. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perictione was niece, not sister of Critias.

According to Lesky's "History of Greek Litterature", Perictione was sister of Harmides and niece of Critias. So, as i'm not registered, i hope that someone 'll change that. Thanks. 155.207.253.58 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. I saw listed your way in Early life of Plato. Brian Pearson 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Plato on Rhetoric"

Plato and Rhetoric is another article related to this one. It needs work. Brian Pearson 02:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also needs to be a section on Poetics and Plato's Poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKamaila (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Requires Mop Up!

This page is headed up as Plato and granted there is a lot of cross over between the dialogues and Socrates but around 60% of this is actually details on Socrates ie biographical detail and writings which doesnt help people actually trying to read about Plato. I would fix it but Im not an expert on the man, someone please help... Amor Macto Mors 09:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC) TC

Yeah, I'll add to the pleas. Can someone who has a grasp on the differences in the philosophies of Plato and Socrates clean this up? I don't care that Plato used a character called Socrates. I want to know about Plato. If Plato was rehashing stuff from his mentor, cool and groovy. But Plato was still the author and this page should reflect that. 129.16.97.227 01:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radical Feminist/Liberal

The segment "Socrates and the Female" claims that Socrates was a "not just a Liberal but a radical feminists" because he defends the idea that women are equally capable to men. This is a laughable statement.

[edit] Radical Feminist/Liberal

The segment "Socrates and the Female" claims that Socrates was a "not just a Liberal but a radical feminist" because he defends the idea that women are equally capable to men. This is a laughably biased and unfair statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.53.192 (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

By "liberal", I think the original author of the claim just meant critical of tradition, which was certainly true of Socrates almost everywhere in Plato. That's a pretty standard understanding of "liberal". Also, on any reasonable understanding of "feminist", it's unquestionable that the Socrates of Plato's Republic (and even of the Meno 73b-c) is a feminist: he accepts that women's intellectual and moral capacity is equivalent to men's, and that they ought to be treated accordingly. That's all feminism ordinarily entails. (There are also hints of this even in the Apology 41c, where Socrates anticipates encountering worthy interlocutors both male and female in the afterlife, if there is one.) Finally, it also seems reasonable to say that this Socrates was radically feministic, at least in comparison to his contemporaries, since the only precedent for his views was in the school of Pythagoras, which was certainly radical. I'm not in favor of restoring the claim; I just found it interesting and worthy of comment that someone found true claims to be "laughably biased and unfair" - sadly not untypical of Wikipedians. I guess it shows how much some people are afraid of the term "feminism". Isokrates 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"women's intellectual and moral capacity is equivalent to men's" in the Republic? Why do people keep saying this, and where in the world are they getting it from? Certainly not from here: "Women share by nature in every way of life just as men do, but in all of them women are weaker than men" (Rep. 455de). True, the Socrates of the Republic does recommend opening up new social roles to women, but there is no hint of anything remotely resembling a claim of gender equality. (And what does Meno 73bc have to do with anything? All that says is that men and women require the same virtues to be good.) Flyingricepaddy 04:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason people keep saying it is maybe that they really found it in Plato; I can only speak for myself. You're certainly looking in the right part of the Republic, but the passage you singled out (455de) is slightly misleading when taken by itself, out of context. But even that passage itself is telling in two ways: First: because the claim that "in all of them [i.e., the guardian arts and practices] women are weaker than men" is explicitly not a claim about the natures of women and men; it's a claim about individual women and men; it's a generalization, meaning that for any particular governmental art/practice, most women happen to be weaker than most men. Glaucon had just hinted at exceptions to this generalization earlier in 455d: "…Many women are better than many men in many things…." Even if the generalization at 455de were true, it wouldn't mean that women by nature were inferior to men; if they were, then all women would be weaker - which is clearly false and so probably not what Socrates here means. Second: there are good reasons for supposing that "weaker" at 455e (and 456a) just means physically weaker: (i) For one thing, at 457a, Socrates says, "They [women] must share in war and the other guardians' duties in the city and do nothing else. But the lighter parts must be assigned to them because of the weakness of their sex." "Weakness" here is clearly physical weakness. (ii) Plus, it's the same word Socrates used at 455e (and 456a) for "weakness". The Greek is astheneia, which usually means specifically physical weakness; it's an antonym for ischus (see 456a), which usually means specifically physical strength. If Socrates had meant weak in some broader sense – if he had just meant worse or inferior, he would have used the word hēttōn or cheirōn. Quite generally, aside from 455de and use of astheneia, the message of the entire discussion (at 451c-457c) seems to be that, with respect to the "guardian" arts and practices, the natures of men and women aren't different (454e-455a), though of course the actual abilities of individuals (both men and women) will vary. The conclusion of the whole passage – anticipated already by Socrates at 454de – is that male and female don't differ in any important way with respect to the guardian arts and practices; they differ only insofar as "the females bear children while the males beget them". I understand 455c as implicitly suggesting that the natures of men and women are as different as the "natures" of the bald and the longhaired; i.e., they don't really have different natures except according to an "eristic" (454a) understanding of "nature". I can only recommend reading the whole passage over again, and trying to consider it objectively. Just as Socrates says, I'd rather have a conversation about this than a quarrel; my aim isn't victory, but mutual understanding. Isokrates 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Socrates clearly accepted the idea that women are not merely to be given "new social roles" but that many of them can handle the very same intellectual rigors of the studies canvassed in Republic 531d-540b as well as men can. There is no suggestion whatsoever that women are intellectually "weaker" than men, that they are "weaker" at geometry or "weaker" at dialectic or "weaker" at apprehending the Good. In fact, the conclusion of the passage on Guardian Studies is this: "...you must not suppose that my words apply to the men more than to all women who arise among them endowed with the requisite qualities..." (540c). Isokrates 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we have to resolve this on the talk page. There are enough scholars who doubt this association with feminism to justify our not presenting the equality of women as Plato's opinion in an encyclopedia article, let alone the tacit assertion that a belief in the equality of women suffices to make one a radical feminist. RJC Talk 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
When you say "there are enough scholars", which scholars do you have in mind specifically? Also, the question has to do with more than just the dread "feminism" moniker; Flyingrice also claims, "there is no hint of anything remotely resembling a claim of gender equality" - an amazing claim (and, I think, patently false claim), given the many such "hints" scattered throughout Republic 451c-457c and 540c. Surely Flyingrice either simply exaggerates or else has already so convinced herself/himself that Socrates cannot have been a feminist that she/he cannot countenance the slightest "hint" of the contrary. My honest opinion is that Flyingrice's comments come from more than just reading 455de out of context; a simple misreading of a bit of text cannot account for the testiness of her/his comments above (and also below). I wonder what can be fueling Flyingrice's hyperbole and name-calling (e.g., "beyond idiotic", "silliness"), since the evidence itself (even if she/he is correct) justifies neither the hyperbole nor the name-calling. Isokrates 15:36, 12 November 2007.
There are scholars on both sides of the question (whether Plato OR Socrates intended to be liberal in the modern sense regarding the rights of women): Philip Slater has a biography in his book "The Glory of Hera," you'll see both sides there. Unless this debate has been definitely resolved recently, I agree that calling Plato (or Socrates) a radical feminist is jus silly. That's why it's getting polemical. The term "radical feminist" is itself polemical and needs disambiguation galore.
I'm afraid this is getting polemical: your response to my suggestion is to object to how Flyingrice has characterized the Plato-as-feminist position. As to your request for specific scholars, I don't edit wikipedia at work so I don't have access to my filing cabinet of journal articles. Bloom's interpretive essay is opposed to the suggestion, I know. A quick Google Scholar search also reveals an article by Annas in Philosophy and by Soffer in History of Political Thought. My point is merely that it is not obvious that the proposal sketched in the Republic is feminist, let alone suffices for radical feminism (there certainly isn't anything poststructural about it). It does not represent a consensus view, and it is this fact I think that should guide our decisions about what goes into the article. RJC Talk 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My response to your suggestion was completely appropriate & free of polemics. Your suggestion involved a confusion of two distinct issues: (A) whether Socrates in the Republic is a feminist, and (B) whether Socrates in the Republic accepts gender equality. If your suggestion was that the issue between me and Flyingrice is moot due to the unsettled controversy among scholars over issue (A), then you were mistaken because, as I pointed out in my last comment, issue (B) is also relevant. If your suggestion was that the issue between me and Flyingrice is moot due to the unsettled controversy over (A) and the fact that a controversy over (A) necessarily involves controversy over (B) and vice versa, then you were mistaken because (A) & (B) are independent issues. In fact, as I said in my last comment, I'll accept for the sake of argument that Socrates may not have been a feminist, but I believe it's nonetheless pretty clear that he accepted the natural equality of men and women, at least intellectually and morally speaking (and maybe it would be good to keep at least this point in the Plato article together with the relevant citations). And the scholarly controversy over (A), as far as I understand it, doesn't hinge on (B), but rather on whether or not Socrates in the Republic accepts women's rights, whether or not he advocated a change in the status quo in addition to describing the education of rulers of an ideal society, and maybe whether or not he was a poststructuralist (if that's something different from these). Isokrates 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Isokrates: I think you're consistently missing Flying's point, which is not to resolve what Plato thought, but how it is described in the article. So far, no one here has given a plausible definition of "radical feminism," nor, indeed, named a single one. Feminism is a 19th and 20th century word/phenomenon, and "radical feminism" must have some sort of modern meaning, to which we can appeal. At any rate, it's an anachronistic term for this article and should not be used.
I am trying to steer clear of the substantive issues, both A and B. My remark about the polemical nature of this dispute was directed toward the fact that you seemed to vent at Flyingricepaddy's tone (his/her statements about idiocy, foolish, etc.) in response to my suggestion that we don't have to address the substantive arguments. In any case, the sources I've read which dispute A also dispute B: there isn't consensus on either point. That's really the only point I'd like to get entangled with. RJC Talk 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Isokrates: I don't see how putting 455de in context changes its meaning at all. As for the original Greek, given your admirable command of that language, you must surely know that asthenesteron can indicate relative weakness not only in body, but also in power, in mind, in property, in significance (reading straight out of the Middle Liddell here). So much for that. And 455de clearly applies to geometry, as it does to every pursuit or way of life (epitêdeuma). (You note there are exceptions given just before, but fail to note that the exceptions given are of stereotypically feminine practices, which might not even count as proper crafts.) Setting that side, now, I do hope we both agree with RJC's voice of reason: what you or I think is the correct reading of the text is quite irrelevant to what should be included in the article.Flyingricepaddy (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the reply. Isokrates (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro is lifted from enclopedia brittanica

is this in like with wikipedia policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybzjaybz (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] broad-browed versus broad-shouldered

The "Early life of Plato" article claims that his name means wide, broad shouldered, while this article claims that it means wide, broad browed. The 2 should be consistent with each other, so which one will it be? You're CRAZY Kriak! 07:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the word is just flat or broad in general, so the name "Plato" itself doesn't contain a reference to a specific body part. RJC Talk 21:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted the following comment on a Discussion page that is now archived: 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) Isokrates 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be very strange for his name to be Plato rather than Platon, giving word endings at the time? Anyone know? I think he's actually referred to as Platon in the original Greek. Correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKamaila (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the Greek is Platōn. "Plato" is just the anglicized form of the Greek. (Same sort of thing with "Crito", "Phaedo", etc.) In fact, in many European languages (e.g., Spanish), he is called "Platōn". Isokrates (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Socrates on educating women" section

Did the article really used to say that Socrates was a feminist? That is beyond idiotic, and the "Socrates on educating women" section still has echoes of that silliness. It is clearly intended to portray Socrates (Plato?) as a feminist figure, which he most assuredly is not. Besides treating the Socrates of the Apology and the Socrates of the Republic as the same character (which is already quite silly), the section attributes to the latter the claim that "gender is irrelevant to aptitude for the professions". Actually he states precisely the opposite of that! For the moment I'll edit the section to show this. But I rather feel that the whole section should just be taken right out, on the grounds that it does not deal with anything like a central topic in the Platonic corpus. Any objections? Flyingricepaddy 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any. RJC Talk 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] More citations needed

Among other issues, at least one citation is needed here:

Albert Einstein drew on Plato's understanding of an immutable reality that underlies the flux of appearances for his objections to the probabilistic picture of the physical universe propounded by Niels Bohr in his interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This HAS to have a link to somewhere, some quote, or best, a statement by Einstein. A quick search turned up nothing. I propose a (citation needed) alert.

--Petebertine (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have flagged a section in the state for citation. Before I edited the section it originally said 'aristocracy (rule by merit)'. I changed this to '(rule by inheritance)' which is the correct definition; however does Plato say that it should be aristocracy or meritocracy (rule by merit)? I corrected the section so as to make it correct in the context that the section is written but the section needs to be checked for truth and citations added. Thanks.

Joe (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aristocracy is literally "rule of the best," and it is used this way in the Republic; the schema you refer to is outlined in Books VIII and IX. RJC Talk Contribs 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plato and Dionysius

I've heard that Plato was imprisoned or even enslaved by Dionysius after being taken on as an advisor, but don't see any mention of it here. Anyone know the story? It would seem important to demonstrate his troubled relationship with practical politics. --Beaker342 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As with a lot of the details of Plato's life, there is no contemporary source concerning this story. It comes from Diodorus' Library 15.7, Plutarch's Dion 4-5, and Diogenes Laertius' Lives 13.18-21. (In the link to the Diogenes translation, the story begins under "XIV", but it's technically 13.18 of Diogenes' text.) The three accounts differ in details, and it's not known how true any of them are. The incident is not (I believe) even mentioned in the notorious Seventh Letter, which was written in or very near Plato's time. We must keep in mind that in the centuries following great figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle a lot of purportedly "biographical" information was simply made up out of whole cloth, sometimes for the purpose of scandal, sometimes just to fill in the gaps. The ancient Greek scholars Kirk, Raven, & Schofield speak of "the great period of fictitious biography in the third and second centuries [B.C.]" (The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge, 1983, 2nd edition, p. 81). Isokrates (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the analysis. Quickly scanning through the Seventh Letter, it or something like it seems to be mentioned. Is the Seventh Letter not a valid source simply because we don't really know if Plato or an imposter wrote it? I'm no classicist. What do you mean by notorious?--Beaker342 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
By "notorious", I guess I meant just that it is often used as a source for details about Plato's life, but that just as often it's authenticity is doubted. Most scholars nowadays aren't confident in ascribing the Letter to Plato himself. Still, even many who think it's not by Plato believe (like John Cooper) that it "must have been written about when it says it was - not long after Dion's death in 354 - and by someone close enough to Plato to be confident of writing philosophy in a way that could convince a discriminating audience...that the author was indeed Plato" (Cooper, Plato: Complete Works, Hackett 1997, p. 1635). But caution is needed. As Jonathan Barnes says, "Surviving ancient letters are more often forged than authentic" ("Roman Aristotle", in Gregory Nagy, Greek Literature, Routledge 2001, vol. 8, p. 185 n. 284). You're right that something like the story is mentioned in the Seventh Letter: the letter says that, after Plato's first visit, Dionysius kept him from sailing out of Sicily (329e); but it doesn't mention selling him into slavery, or even imprisoning him.Isokrates (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Righto. I'd still be interested, if I or someone else can get around to it, in developing a more robust biography, to the degree that it is possible for a figure like Plato. I'm probably less inclined to take your hard line stance against sources that might or might not be dubious as long as we are explicit that there is legitimate scholarly disagreement. I'm of the opinion that we should follow what the scholarship says. We can all probably agree that Plato went to Syracuse and had trouble there, but we don't have any real evidence that we was imprisoned or enslaved. Or we can simply say that the more extravagant stories are part of the lore around Plato but can't be verified and may be false. My concern is that to ignore the stories is to leave the article wanting. --Beaker342 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that part of the problem is that modern scholarship says that we must discount what we know about Plato's life, as most of it is false: presenting the false information would be to run against the current of contemporary scholarship. A lot of what was said about Plato is like stories about George Washington and the cherry tree, or skipping a silver dollar across the Delaware River, or that time he fought King George III with his bare knuckles. RJC Talk Contribs 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's what the scholarship says, then I'm all for it. Perhaps a little note about why so little is known about him is in order. I find your analogy a little off, however, given that the page on George Washington expressly does mention the cherry tree myth. Moreover, the page already includes a number of myths - Plato's virginal birth, etc. --Beaker342 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a good biography of Plato would include things said about his activities in the Seventh Letter, since it probably was written in or very near Plato's time and most scholars do accept it as evidence for Plato's activities. But if you're interested in a robust biography, I would avoid the tales that derive wholly from later sources. It's true that some nonsense gets included in these Wikiarticles, but that's mainly because people often add details haphazardly without regard for the merit of the source and the edits are hard to police, not because such things should be included. I'm all in favor of removing those silly legends recounted in the Birth and Family section of the article. Unless the legend is very well-known or fundamentally helped shape the figure's historical persona, it's pointless. Neither can fairly be said of the legends mentioned under Birth and Family.Isokrates (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree on a great deal here. But here's my concern. I heard the story about Plato's enslavement several years back from a professor who was not a classicist. Given that these kind of stories are recounted relatively casually by people who generally know what they are talking about otherwise, I think it would do well for the article to mention the stories and then explain why they are generally not regarded as trustworthy by scholars. To just ignore them would be doing a disservice and be helping to perpetuate the myths. --Beaker342 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plato not "part of the Socratic entourage" or "inner circle"?

At the beginning of the Plato and Socrates section of the article, someone had said, "Plato made himself seem as though he were part of the Socratic entourage but never says so explicitly. ... In the Apology, Plato distances himself from the inner circle." I believe this involves a misunderstanding of how Plato represents himself in the Apology. I would not be prepared to say that Plato considered himself "part of Socrates' entourage" or Socrates' "inner circle"; but that's only because it's not clear what whoever wrote this part of the article means by "entourage" or "inner circle". Is it made clear elsewhere in Plato's dialogues who did belong to the "inner circle"? So far as I know, Plato never mentions an "inner circle". But he certainly portrays himself in the Apology as one of Socrates' young devoted followers, in quite explicit terms in fact. Given this fact, I think it's simply misleading to suggest that Plato somehow went out of his way to "distance himself" from Socrates or Socrates' devoted followers. So I've edited this part of the article accordingly, including textual citations. Comment if you wish.Isokrates (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the prior version as it stood was wrong, but I don't think that we can identify Plato with Socrates, simply. I have revised what you wrote to make it more idiomatic and to remove some extraneous information, and added a paragraph to give more depth to how they might seem different to a reasonable person. RJC Talk Contribs 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Trial of Socrates': Socrates and Aristophanes were NOT atheists

The charge against Socrates was of worshipping his own, non-Athenian gods, not atheism. Aristophanes mocks the gods in his play because under comic license anything was fair game, including the gods, not because he was an atheist. And atheism certainly was 'condemned by the masses' - the Athenians were highly conservative in religious matters. This section is thoroughly misleading and ought to be entirely rewritten. 62.232.17.82 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In Plato's Apology, Meletus does accuse Socrates of atheism, as much as admitting that this lies behind his formal charge. RJC Talk Contribs 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but the problem with this section is that it implies atheism was the formal charge, that atheism was no big deal in classical Athens, and that Socrates and Aristophanes were both plainly atheists. None of these statements could be further from the truth. Socrates in both Plato and Xenophon recommends orthodox piety in religious observances - there's nothing surprising at all about his claiming his mission to have been authorised by Apollo at Delphi. The socially conservative Aristophanes is hardly likely to have aligned himself with the most radically free-thinking philosophers (and tyrants, such as Critias) in denying the existence of the gods - as opposed to burlesqueing them as was conventional in comedy. Atheism and impiety were regarded with horror by ordinary Athenians - look at the reaction to the mutilation of the Herms. 62.232.17.82 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A possible rewording to "charges of impiety" instead of "charges of atheism" might be better. Would this be a solution? Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the charge of impiety is more accurate than a charge of atheism, but the first paragraph is worded in terms of "disbelief in the gods," which is the formal charge. Looking at the second paragraph, however, I agree that it has to go. It is original research, and patently absurd original research, at that. Atheism was illegal under the law; Pericles' enemies passed the law to strike at his friend, Anaxagoras. What might be odd is that an Athenian citizen was charged under it, rather than an alien sophist, but prosecution was not unheard of. As to Aristophanes, I would say that he was an atheist, but that's neither here nor there: it comes up to prove a bizarre point about those free-wheeling, tolerant Athenians. I'll remove the offending paragraph. RJC Talk Contribs 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you'll see from the length of my comments here, I find this matter very interesting; if you don't, feel free to ignore the following. 62.232.17.82 is quite right that in Socrates' days "Athenians were highly conservative in religious matters." John Burnet says, "…the Athenians at the end of the fifth century B.C. were very orthodox, as is shown by such things as the prosecution of Anaxagoras, and the excitement caused by the mutilation of the Hermae, and the profanation of the Mysteries" (p. 49, "The Religious and Moral Ideas of Euripides" in his Essays and Addresses). However, even about this we need to be careful, because apparently even rejection of the traditional Homeric tales about the gods (e.g.) was well within Greek "orthodoxy" at the time: "As has often been remarked, the general trend of the best Greek thought on the problems of human conduct and destiny - as represented, e.g., by such poets as Aeschylus and Euripides - is in the direction of a vague monotheism" (A.E. Taylor, "Theism" in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics). Burnet too says, "…it cannot be doubted that Plato personally believed in one God. Indeed, that was the belief of all intelligent Athenians at this date. … Greek literature, at least, is certainly polytheistic. … But we must bear in mind that such things [as we find in Homer] formed no part of Greek religion…. It is certain that not only Plato but all intelligent Greeks regarded mythology as purely fanciful. The Greeks, we must remember, had no sacred books..." (Platonism p. 118). Aside of this matter, however, 62.232.17.82 is mistaken in claiming that Socrates wasn't charged with atheism or wasn't believed to be an atheist. Also, though 62.232.17.82 may be right about Aristophanes, it may well be that Socrates was "plainly" an atheist (in the Greek sense) if he really believed some of the things Plato describes him as accepting. And, as I'll show, all this can be backed up by good sources, not "original research". But the matter is complicated by the fact that "atheist" in current English does not quite have the same meaning as the Greek term (atheos) from which our word came. First, some reasons that the Athenians might have had – or might have been presented with – to believe that Socrates was an atheist: As Aristophanes portrayed him in the Clouds, he accepted the views of the natural philosophers who notoriously rejected the personal gods of traditional ancient Greek religion. Of course, many of the Presocratics used religious terminology to describe natural phenomena: according to Aristotle (Physics 203b3-15), "Anaximander and most of the natural philosophers" said that the archai were "divine" because they were "immortal and indestructible". But their archai were impersonal "divinities". As Burnet notes, "The use of the term ['god' or 'divine'] by the Milesians means rather that the place once occupied by the gods of religion was now being taken by the great fundamental phenomena of nature, and the later Greeks were quite right, from their own point of view, in calling that atheism" (p. 201, "Greek Philosophy" in Essays and Addresses). Indeed, "Hippo…was nicknamed 'the Atheist' 'because he assigned the cause of everything to nothing else besides water' " (Jonathan Barnes, quoting Diels-Kranz 38A8 in his The Prescratic Philosophers (2nd ed.), p. 96). Burnet says that the Athenians called Hippo an atheist because he believed that in death he would be equal to the gods, i.e. immortal (Burnet, "Socrates", Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Burnet here refers to the epitaph attributed to Hippo at Diels-Kranz 38B2, also quoted in Barnes op. cit.). Hippo is particularly interesting for us because, as Burnet notes, a medieval scholium attributes to Hippo one of the wacky views – that the heavens are like an oven - attributed to Socrates in the Clouds (line 96). All the more interesting for us is the fact that some scholars have attributed to Socrates Hippo's view about personal immortality; Burnet, e.g., claims that the Socrates of Plato's Apology accepted this kind of view (p. 257, "The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul", Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 7); Gregory Vlastos says too says that for Socrates "our soul is our self" and "[i]n the Crito [54b-c] he reveals his faith in the soul's survival" (Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, p. 55). Burnet makes it clear that such a belief alone would be grounds for a charge of atheism: "There was no room in the public religion [of Athens] for any doctrine of immortality. The gods alone are immortal, and it would be shocking to suggest that human beings might be so too. The dead are just the dead, and how can the dead be deathless? In the heroic age, indeed, some human beings had attained immortality by being turned into gods and heroes, but such things were not expected to happen now" (p. 249, "The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul"). Even according to the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery cults the immorality of the soul did not mean that we ourselves survived death in any personally meaningful way; so Burnet explains that, even according to such a view, the soul "may be divine and immortal, but it is really no concern of ours except in sleep and at the moment of death. It is not identified with what we call 'I' " (ibid. p. 251). As for whether one of the charges against Socrates was "atheism", there is pretty substantial agreement among scholars. RJC was correct: As Thomas Brickhouse and Nicholas Smith put it, "Meletus' charge [in Plato's Apology] is not that Socrates completely neglects proper religious practice; it is that Socrates is a complete atheist" (p. 31, Socrates on Trial, ); they note "it is clear that Xenophon also understood the charges against Socrates to involve atheism" (ibid., citing Memorabilia 1.1.5). Burnet explains the charge somewhat differently: "The charge against Socrates was, indeed, one of Atheism, but we see how remote the Greek meaning of this word was from ours by the fact that the indictment accused him of introducing 'new gods' " (p. 52, "The Religious and Moral Ideas of Euripides"). Finally, Richard Janko: "Whether or not Socrates had ever been one of these [natural] scientists, and whether or not he believed in the supernatural, as he clearly did, he was punished because many thought he was an 'atheist' (atheos) in the Greek sense…. This broad term included people who believed in new gods, in one god, or in no god at all" (p. 48, "Socrates the Freethinker" in Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar (eds.) A Companion to Socrates). And, as I tried to explain above, there is even some pretty good reason for thinking that Socrates was an atheist in this sense, if only because of his unorthodox belief that we survive bodily death in a personally meaningful way, i.e. that we "mortals" are really immortal and our souls divine. Isokrates (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)