Talk:Plato's four cardinal virtues

- Where are these blatantly listed? I'm writing a paper, and I can do the virtues in the city from Book IV, but where do they first appear? - Darkhawk

Misinterpretation

This article has a strongly-Christian bias that is actually a mis-interpretation of Plato. In different dialogues, Plato posits different theories of virtue stemming from the theories of his interlocutors. For instance, in the Euthyphro, piety is argued to be the the most important virtue because Euthyphro lacks piety according to Socrates' own definition. However, Plato rarely puts forth positive arguments to be taken as his own (via Socrates). In the Republic, Plato argues in Book IV for certain virtues, but even in this case there are not four "cardinal" virtues to be taken as Plato's own view. Augustine, and Aquinas, were both well-read in Aristotle and Plato. The idea of "cardinal" or "primary" was first used by them to reconcile Platonic philosophy with early Christianity. Both of the citations are not reliable sources on Plato. Neither of these deal with Greek philosophy. This solidifies my concern that this article is biased to the point of inaccuracy; the Catholic Church's Encyclopedia is in no way an authority, or even reputable source, for Plato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.197.78 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting since October for the promised changes after the article was deprodded; I don't believe they are forthcoming and (based on my knowledge of Plato) I don't believe that they can be forthcoming. I would merge and redirect this to the article on Plato or the Republic. We can't remove the information as false, since it is verifiable, but WP:UNDUE suggests against giving it its own article. As it stands, an independent article on the Catholic understanding of Plato, presented as an article on Plato, runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead and prod it again RJC. My position has changed since last time. -Pollinosisss (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Need for this article?

Why does this article exist? What does it say (or could it say, once expanded beyond a stub) that is not already covered by The Republic (Plato)? This seems to be a bare summary of the result of Book IV. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Republic could easily be deemphasized as it is not the only place where these principal virtues appear. As for what could be added? A section on the legacy of these virtues could easily be added. This section could touch on the reception of the virtues among later Platonists. Something of their adoption by Christian thinkers could also be said. Another section could perhaps be created to examine modern scholarly opinion on where exactly these virtues fit in Plato's philosophy?

I will attempt to fix up this article in the near future. I have removed the deletion proposal for now. Pollinosisss (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you decide to improve this article, you might also note the places were it appears that these are not Plato's "cardinal" virtues, e.g., everywhere that he says that virtue is knowledge or that the only "cardinal" virtue is wisdom. To present this as an elucidation of Plato's thought, i.e., that he really did conceive of four cardinal virtues, pushes the article in the direction of a pro-Thomistic WP:POV. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This article cannot be saved. User: Pollinosisss is incorrect in saying that the Republic could be "deemphasized" such that the four virtues mentioned are universally "principal" or assented to unequivocally by Plato. As for the Platonic dialogues as a whole, there is absolutely no way that the article's view can be correct. The ONLY way to correct this article would be to do something similar to the suggestion above and say that this is a Christian-based interpretation of Plato and the Republic and to discuss the legacy of the Dialogue starting with St. Augustine. 66.146.197.78 (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, and Pollinosisss has changed his view (see discussion above). There is an AfD for this article that was relisted to generate a further consensus: you should make your arguments there so the article can actually be deleted. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please re-prod article for deletion. Incorrect and contents too similar to Republic article. Please delete for quality standards66.146.197.78 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion under Articles for Deletion, if you wish to make your voice heard there. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)