Talk:Socrates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Socrates article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Socrates as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Peer review Socrates has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

(Content moved to talk:Trial of Socrates)

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Vegetarian?

I've heard from a number of claims that he's a vegetarian. Is there any proof of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.12.108 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is mentioned somewhere in Plato's 'Republic' which features Socrates as a 'character' - my take on it is that it's more in support of 'balanaced living' over gluttony and debauchery (things which are then inferred to create an 'unhealthy' city, with a knock on effect on the city's ethics (you should read it though - makes more sense than me!). The diet described is, I think, also described only as 'mostly vegetarian' - I see as a more detailed version of that old truism - 'everything in moderation'..... Privatemusings (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of no good evidence. But vegetarianism would be consistent with the Pythagoreanism often attributed to Socrates, especially by Plato in the Phaedo. Isokrates (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead reword.... more to come...

Hi folks - I've got some time and energy to work on this article over the next little while, and thought I'd note here that I've kicked off by rewording the lead a little.

I removed the specific Athens info from the first sentence, as undue at that point, and a bit confusing - I think there's a place for it though later - and will put it back in at some point. I've also reworded the second para somewhat, just to try and make it clearer... thoughts most welcome..... Privatemusings (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey - I've been scratching my head a bit about how I might be best able to help get this article to FA - where it so clearly belongs! - I'm going to try and work a bit in a personal sandbox, which I think might be useful because I intend to modify the structure fairly comprehensively, and will likely experiment rather brutally, which shouldn't be forced onto the unsuspecting reader!

You can see what I'm up to at User:Privatemusings/Socrates_Sandbox and as and when I think I've made any improvements, I'll drop notes here, or do feel free to comment at the talk page of the sandbox if you'd like.... feedback about this sandbox process is also most welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socratic Irony

I don't think it is correct to say that Socrates created/invented Socratic Irony. Granted, we're fairly certain it is true that the historical Socrates "had a reputation for irony, though what that means exactly is controversial; at a minimum, Socrates' irony consisted in his saying that he knew nothing of importance and wanted to listen to others, yet keeping the upper hand in every discussion." (Text From the Standford Encyc.) Yes, Socrates used irony.

However, "Socratic Irony" as it would be discussed in a class on Philosophy or classics refers to the irony "exhibited by Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes." (See here) It is, more than anything, a literary technique. Granted--in the dialogs of Plato and Co. it is the character Socrates who uses the irony. None the less, it is Plato, really, who "invents" Socratic irony.

Thus, I've removed the uncited claim that Socrates created "Socratic Irony". Fixer1234 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] done some work on the first 5 para.s

I've reworked the first five para.s a bit at User:Privatemusings/Socrates_Sandbox - nothing major, just rewords, and a slight structural change to the headings at this point.

I did however, return mention of 'Socratic Irony' to the lead, but have tried not to claim invention as much as just letting the reader know that yes, this is is 'that' Socrates - I think that's appropriate per a 'weight' concern.

I hope the article is slightly better in this form, but let me know what you think - if I don't hear too much in the next day or so, I'll transfer these changes over.... thanks... Privatemusings (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see there have been a few anon edits in the interim - which is making me think a more 'bold' approach is probably a good idea... I'm going to pop my work in now, and invite any and all comments here! Privatemusings (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the way your characterizing both Socratic Irony and the Socratic Method. Since Socrates didn't write anything, I think it is inaccurate to suggest that these concepts are his “ideas”, that he created them, or was a proponent of them. Both SI and SM are concepts inspired by the characterization of Socrates in Plato. As later philosophers, teachers, and writers thought and wrote about (Plato's) Socrates these concepts developed. Some of the articles I've been reading suggest the concept of Socratic Irony begins as early as Aristotle. SI and SM as we think of them today, however, are the result of 2000 years+ of scholarship. They are excellent examples of Socrates' legacy , but not of "ideas" we can attribute directly to him. ____ I am working on a paragraph or two that will talk about Socrates legacy, the significance of his being the first “Non-Socratic” philosopher, and how he has influenced Western Thought. (The SM will certainly play into discussion.) I'm doing some research on JSTOR and other journal archives to find solid sources for the article, so any major edits from me won't come for a week or so. Fixer1234 (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your points, Fixer - and I should be really clear that I'm not really a huge fan of the current lead - I do feel that some mention of Socratic Method et al is probably warranted, but we must be accurate as well as accessible, of course! My aims with this article are fairly long term too - I'd like to get it to FA at some point - and to that end, I've also asked for further advice through a 'peer review' - which may throw up some useful information. Probably the best next step is for us to stay in touch as we find the time to work on it, and see where we get to! - It's nice to meet you, and I look forward to helping improve Socrates as best we can! - Privatemusings (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Socratic Irony and Aristotle's "Eiron": Some Puzzles

By: P. W. Gooch, Scarborough College (University of Toronto)
Published: Phoenix, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Summer, 1987), pp. 95-104.
Obtained from JSTOR Sunday March 2nd, 2008

This Article adresses my some of my comments. (See blockquote below. The text is from a footnote.)

At the end of the last century J. A. Stewart wrote, "Aristotle is the first to make Socrates the type of refined Irony" (Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle [Oxford 18921 1.359). Next Burnet: "This passage seems to be the origin of the current phrase 'Socratic irony,' a thing which is almost as mythical as 'tragic irony'" (The Ethics ofAristotle [London 19001 196). Then T. Marshall: "Irony, in the sense in which it is now commonly taken, as meaning an affectation of ignorance, is here attributed to Sokrates . . . . The authority of Aristotle has had a good deal to do with fixing the present meaning of the word" (Aristotle's Theory of Conduct [London 19091 264). And G. G. Sedgewick: "our ideas of Socratic irony spring ultimately from Aristotle's definition of eironeia as a pretence which takes the form of self-depression . . . .[Aristotle] fixed the general sense of Socratic irony for all time" (OfIrony, Especzally in Drama2 [Toronto 19481 11-12). (Works mentioned in this note will be cited by author's name, as will R. A. Gauthier and J. Y. Jolif, ~ ' f ' t h i ~2u eNicomaque [Louvain 19591 and T. Irwin, tr., Nicomachean Ethlcs [Indianapolis 19851).

[edit] Ancient philosophy time line notes

Info from "Ancient philosophy" from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The online version of this is a pay sight, but you may be able to sample the article by finding it on Google. You won't be able to use the hyperlinks, search, etc...but you should be able to sample the text for free (I was). Link

The Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC are the Presocratic period. This ends with Socrates (The fourth century bc). Plato and Aristotle are both philosophers of the Classical period. The Hellenistic period begins in 323 with Aristotle's death and ends in 31BC "when the Roman empire officially begins". Philosophically speaking, this is the Neoplatonic period. (Sometimes it is called the "imperial" period.) This period is, as the name suggests, dominated by platonists. However, it also includes Epictetus. "Ancient philosophy....was....eclipsed by Christianity in the sixth century AD."Fixer1234 (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socratic Problem Re-write

okey dokey - I dove in, and have culled quite alot of info from the Socratic Problem section - particularly this bit;

The primary challenge in this endeavor has been to ascertain whether or not Plato provides readers with historically accurate information on his former teacher. Gregory Vlastos has argued (controversially)[1] that there is a clear demarcation between Plato's depictions of the character. In his book, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Vlastos makes the following claim:

In different segments of Plato's corpus two philosophers bear that name [Socrates]. The individual remains the same. But in different sets of dialogues he pursues philosophies so different that they could not have been depicted as cohabitating the same brain throughout unless it had been the brain of a schizophrenic. They are so diverse in content and method that they contrast as sharply with one another as with any third philosophy you care to mention...[2]

In Plato's earlier dialogues, Vlastos claims, Socrates is depicted as his actual historical self, right down to the philosophical ideas he propounds.

Which I thought did't fit great at that point in the article - giving undue prominence to Vlastos' work (which is interesting) and I think making the article a bit clunky at that point.... I also chopped some 'weasel' words out, and tried to reword retaining meaning in a clearer, more concise fashion.... thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

"Direct criticism of Socrates disappears at this point but there is a noticeable preference for Plato or Aristotle over Socratic philosophy even into the Middle Ages."

-- I deleted this. Aristotle criticized Socrates. Nietzche criticised Socrates - or Plato's Socrates... my second point is that, there is a notable preference for Platonic philosphy over Socratic philosphy because there is no such thing as Socratic philosophy. It's all Plato (maybe a little Xenophon, and a little Aristophanes). Socrates's philosophy's are as much his own as Shakespeare's Iago, or Darth Vader's... less villainous perhaps.170.173.0.16 (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a point referred to earlier in the section. There isn't that much to criticize because there isn't much about him besides those three main indirect sources and his influences on Cynicism and Stoicism. I have no problem noting Nietzsche's criticism but barring that, I've seen almost no criticism of his ideas or even his actions as a human being much less a philosopher - even though he would might have eschewed that title given his dislike for the sophists. What criticism there is such as doubts of his monotheism as well as his homosexuality also appear already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taospark (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've edited it to be more neutral and to be more clear. Does anyone know in which one of his writings or essays that Nietzsche criticized Socrates? -Taospark (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jibberish

This article is flawed and keeps beating around the bush. I came on JUST to look at his philosophical beliefs, which I'm sure many people would do, and when you look at the section, it goes on about jibberish about how he and his student thought alike. Excuse me, but that doesn't mean jacksh*t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article clearly states in a few places that he didn't write things down and that his representation in Plato's dialogues might be the most accurate (due to the close relationship they had), but at the same time, no one is sure just how accurate it is because there are Plato's dialogues, not Socrates' writings.I understand your frustration, but it seems to me that the article does what it can with what it has. --Thaddius (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epilepsy

Just a small note that maybe added should you so wish. Socrates the great thinker suffered from Epilepsy and that is the reason that Plato was one of if not the first person to do serious research into the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.2.47 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the melancholia attributed by the pseudo-Aristotelian author of the Problems XXX 1, 953a26. I don't, however, know what you mean by Plato's "serious research" into epilepsy. By the way, this article seems interesting in this connection, but I haven't had a chance to read it.Isokrates (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Mysticsm seems to have unrelated content

First off thank you for the terrific article. I read it from start to finish and feel far more informed about this critical thinker, his vital points of view, and the issues related to figuring out what he did and didn't say.

However, I found the section on Mysticism to be somewhat rambling and wasn't sure what it was trying to say. I can elaborate. But for starters the section seems to have unrelated content that goes off purely on Plato's writing style. In particular these two sentences:

"Plato's choice of this, the medium of Sophocles, Euripides, and the fictions of theatre, may reflect the interpretable nature of his writings."

Perhaps the problem here is the ambiguity of the reference of 'his'? If his is Socrates than I think I get it. In that case, I'd suggest rewriting as "...nature of Socrates' writings." If 'his' does not refer to Socrates then what are you trying to say here? Specifically, if 'his' refers to Plato, then I don't think the sentence is relevant to this article.

OK, the following sentence - "What is more, the first word of nearly all Plato's works is a, or the, significant term for that respective study, and is used with the commonly approved definition in mind." Seems to have nothing to do with Socrates or his mysticism. If I'm correct, then I suggest that the sentence be dropped from the article.

Yes, I'm being picky. All in the spirit of making this great article a bit closer to the 'good' ;->.

Ronewolf (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)