Talk:Plato/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Footnotes

We should edit the footnotes of this article to include all of western philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.182.105 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links to Audio

ejunto.org has high quality audio recordings (English) of Plato's Republic and The Apology. The LibriVox recordings are listed so would it be a problem if I added a link to The Republic? http://ejunto.org/Listen/TitlePage.aspx?TitleId=4 Beaster77 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic Genealogy

This section seems out of place to me. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dividing into early, middle, and late dialogues

The introduction to the division of Plato's dialogues into early, middle, and late states that there is much disagreement on the subject, that only two periods can be proven conclusively, and that many scholars doubt that the dialogues can be dated at all. Yet the article goes on to present a division into time periods as authoritative (qualified only by the statement that is is just one commonly held view), mirrored in the template Template:Dialogues of Plato. This seems to run afoul of WP:NPOV (especially as regards the template, where the division is simply presented as fact without explanation). Given this, I think the extent to which this division is discussed should be scaled back and the template organized along some other lines. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -Pollinosisss (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubt over the early-middle-late division waxes and wanes in scholarship, but nonetheless the division is almost always assumed in the vast majority of books and articles (perhaps with an excusing footnote) on Plato. The debate about its merit usually occurs in a small number of articles considering the specific topic of Plato's chronology. In any case, the early-middle-late division has been so prevalent over the years that these divisions have become ubiquitous place-markers for collections of Plato's dialogues, whether or not one thinks these collections pick out distinct chronological groups, distinct philosophical groups, or nothing distinct at all. E.g. authors write on what they call the 'early dialogues' or 'late Plato' so it's very hard to avoid talking about 'such-and-such's view of the early dialogues', even if one doubts that 'early' picks out anything special. The article, then, just reflects a messy part of Platonic scholarship and I'd say it's best leave it as it is. Otherwise Wikipedia would be the only introduction to Plato that I know of that doesn't use this division, which might itself make it run afoul of NPOV. --Dast (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting removing it from the article entirely, just scaling it back. It was the template that I suggested removing it from entirely. The consensus may wax and wane, but it seems to be in the wane stage right now. I will also say that I haven't seen this division repeated in political science journals, so they're not that ubiquitous. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the early/middle/late division is entirely absent from poli sci journals, although it may be mentioned less often because poli sci doesn't often deal with later dialogues like Statesman and Laws. In classics and ancient philosophy the chronology of the dialogues is a basic part of discussion about Plato. "scaling back" the discussion in this article might be feasible—simply converting the lists to prose might help in terms of style and readability. I wouldn't support changing the template, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wincenty Lutoslawski

Why there's nothing here about Lutoslawski, and putting Plato's works in chronological order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.144.116 (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Platonav

Template:Platonav has been nominated for merging with Template:Platonism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

verbose opening

In the opening sentence, I would think it's sufficient to say that he was a "Greek philosopher and mathematician". The other achievements mentioned in the opening sentence aren't different enough from those two professions in order to list them separately. Owen214 (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

unlock

Unlock the page --93.82.5.49 (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Every time we unlock it, we get a flood of vandalism that disrupts constructive editing. This has happened for several years now, and so the decision was taken to recognize this as a high-visibility page and semi-protect it indefinitely. You may register for an account or post desired edits to this talk page. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

name and citizenship

There seem to be two details missing.

1) wasn't Platos real name Aristokles (Prof. Willy Ley).

2) Under classical Greek law didn't a man have to serve some sort of military service before he could be awarded citizenship.

As Socrates had a distinguished military career no doubts there but there doesn't seem to be any mention of Plato having done so although according to his works he was very keen on what would now be caalled National Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.155 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plato's "real name" is largely discredited, as we don't find any attestations to that effect until several centuries later, by which point myth had begun to take over the biographies written of him. Also, there was no classical Greek law regarding citizenship: each city was independent, and a man who would be a citizen in one city would not be one in another. One was born a citizen in Athens. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy section confusingly written

It is not clear all the time whom "he" refers to (Plato or Socrates) and this can cause confusion. It makes the article look like it is constantly contradicting itself as it discusses Socrates before then in the next sentence using the word "he" to refer to Plato - can someone with edit rights please clarify this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.174 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Plato motto: "God is ever a geometer"

In researching the history of Greek gematria - the alphanumeric quality of a language - we are pointed to Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans, and Plato. There is an ancient Greek motto: "God is ever a geometer" (ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ μέγας γεωμετρεῖ), whereas, counting the letters of the words (3,1,4,1,5,9) reveals the first six digits of pi (3.14159). This confirms that 'Step 1' of Greek gematria is simply counting the number of letters in a word/name and that 'Step 2' is the gematric sum of a word/name. There's a question of whether "God is ever a geometer" is rightfully accredited to Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans, or to Plato?

- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 65.34.180.54 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Decimal notation was unknown to the Greeks. And ἀεὶ is also spelled ἀὶ and ἀιεὶ. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that "Decimal notation was unknown to the Greeks" and our current global numerical system (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) was also unknown to the ancient Greeks. However, they used the first 10 Greek letters to represent 1-10 and the next 10 letters as 20-100, so they were definitely using a base-10 numerical system and were using fractions. The Greek scribes at the time of Plato were also using gematria and had also discovered pi to be 3.14159. So, I correctly stated that Plato encoded 3.14159 with (the Greek) "God is ever a geometer". - Brad Watson, Miami, FL64.136.26.230 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a talk page is not the place to discuss something like this. Because of WP:NOR and WP:V, and some related guidelines that expand upon those policies, your theories cannot be put into the article. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've actually given this more thought than I should have, having discovered some web pages to the same effect and wondered if it could be true. Alas, it is not. The actual quotation from Plato (via Plutarch) can be found here: τὸν θεὸν ἀεὶ γεωμετρεῖν or [ἀεὶ] γεωμετρεῖν τὸν θεὸν. Even returning this to direct speech, we don't have all the words, nor are they in the right order. Some modern Greek schoolteacher probably made up that mnemonic, which would explain why other versions have even more decimals represented, e.g., Ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὀ Μέγας γεωμετρεῖ, τὸ κύκλου μῆκος ἵνα ὁρίσῃ διαμέτρῳ, παρήγαγεν ἀριθμὸν ἀπέραντον, καὶ ὅν, φεῦ, οὐδέποτε ὅλον θνητοὶ θὰ εὕρωσι; see piphilology. I would be surprised to find if the phrase as you quote it were older than the nineteenth century. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Socrates Says?

In almost all the philosophy section, Plato is not mentioned, the article instead says, for example: " Socrates, in his allegory of the cave, says...". Is this a mistake, or it is talking about Socrates as a character in Plato writtings?--128.189.178.191 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter. Because Plato did not leave treatises and there is significant dispute in the literature about what Plato thought, it would be an WP:NPOV violation to attribute Socrates' statements to Plato. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Death

I can't seem to find any description of Plato's death in the article. It needs to be added. --188.183.61.228 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Plato was a vegetarian

Plato is famously known for being vegetarian just as Aristotle was. He wrote about this philosophy, it was a lifestyle choice and it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBubblyBaboon (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC) It could be referenced alongside mention of The Myth Of Er, within which Plato notes that the transmigration of souls occurs between human and animal bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBBoy12345 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dialectic

There doesn't seem to be anything about the "dialectic" which seems to be a strange ommission. Any comments from any of the editors of this page? Oxford73 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Significant new scholarship from Jay Kennedy

I just thought there should be some reference within the page to theories about codes within Plato's text. In particular, recent scholarship (widely reported) from Dr. Jay Kennedy (Univ. of Manchester) suggests a musical structure to the texts. See the following reference, for example: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=5894 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBBoy12345 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This research was widely reported in the popular press, has not taken Plato scholarship by storm, as far as I can tell--it's still very recent in academic terms. I'm not saying it's wrong, or a terrible idea, but until it starts playing a major role in studies of Plato, it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. JustinBlank (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 5432man, 7 June 2011 It should be included that Plato was a dramatist.

It should be included that Plato was a dramatist: he wrote Drama before becoming a disciple of Socrates, and the Dialogues are a dramatic form. A one-word addition ("dramatist") to the summary would improve it.

citation: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/> Second paragraph lines one through four.

Plato (English pronunciation: /ˈpleɪtoʊ/; Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn, "broad";[2] 428/427 BC[a] – 348/347 BC), was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, dramatist, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science.[3] In the famous words of A.N. Whitehead:

5432man (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The link above doesn't say Plato was a dramatist, and actually from the link they say:

But Plato's dialogues do not try to create a fictional world for the purposes of telling a story, as many literary dramas do; nor do they invoke an earlier mythical realm, like the creations of the great Greek tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

This seems like the opposite of your description as "dramatic form". Do you have a link to a reliable source stating that he wrote dramas or was a dramatist? — Bility (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I do recall an anecdote that sounds similar to the IP's claim, but I don't think it is enough to call Plato a dramatist. Allegedly, he tore up all his poetry upon becoming Socrates' pupil. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading Suggestion

Mark Blitz, Plato's Political Philosophy (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.209.186 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Justinian's closing of "Plato's Academy"

Regarding this below quote:

Plato may have traveled in Italy, Sicily, Egypt and Cyrene.[27] Said to have returned to Athens at the age of forty, Plato founded one of the earliest known organized schools in Western Civilization on a plot of land in the Grove of Hecademus or Academus.[28] The Academy was "a large enclosure of ground that was once the property of a citizen at Athens named Academus... some, however, say that it received its name from an ancient hero",[29] and it operated until AD 529, when it was closed by Justinian I of Byzantium, who saw it as a threat to the propagation of Christianity. Many intellectuals were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being Aristotle.[30]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that this was a Neoplatonic academy and that it was not running continuously from Plato's time up to 529 AD (and possibly also that there's some doubt about this event)? For more information, see the article Platonic_Academy#Neoplatonic_Academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abvgd (talk • contribs) 12:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Platonic Love

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The ideal and romantic, sexually unfulfielled, love is called in everyday speech Platonic love. And the nicest thing to Plato rebember love young people who do not even know his philosophy.93.137.57.159 (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle's remarks about Plato

Aristotle's remarks about Plato's philosophy are biased, and misleading, and should be removed from Plato articles.

“Aristotle attributes a different doctrine with respect to the ideas to Plato and Socrates (Metaphysics 987b1–11). Putting it in a nutshell, Aristotle merely suggests that his idea of forms can be discovered through investigation of the natural world, unlike Plato's Forms that exist beyond and outside the ordinary range of human understanding.”

Aside from the understandable misconception that "forms can be discovered through investigation of the natural world" (see gavagai), Aristotle's "suggestion" also seems to display ignorance of parts the Republic V-VII (Perhaps Plato added some portions in later editions?).

Plato specifies FOUR logically related models in the Republic 6:509D–513E, the Divided Line, not just the TWO that Aristotle turns upside-down and then incorporates into his own system. Plato's system is on a much grander scale than that of Aristotle. BlueMist (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I would object to the removal of Aristotle's remarks from the article. Wrong information is not removed just because it is wrong, especially when it is well-sourced that Aristotle said these things about Plato and his having said so does figure heavily in Platonic scholarship. Even attacks upon Aristotle's understanding of Plato show the importance of Aristotle to Platonic scholarship, to say nothing of the scholars who cite Aristotle in support of their interpretations of Plato. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, RJC. People who cite either Aristotle or later Aristotelians about Plato, or just about any subject, are always in the overwhelming majority. This presents a huge problem in philosophy for both Aristotle scholars and Plato scholars. A neutral point of view, which has gained preference in the past thirty years, must cautiously struggle against biased orthodoxy even in the academic community.

From a historical, or fact-collection perspective, I agree that both have valid claims to be included in any encyclopedia which is shaped by public opinion. When there is a conflict in content, so that current scholarly opinion can be squashed by the obsolete majority, decisions may need to made. Both should be given adequate exposure. However, I do agree that the votes of the admins is the best (Platonic) method to make decisions. I am merely lobbying for a clear separation of Plato from his critics, which I believe is most useful for both the readers and for Wikipedia. BlueMist (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Forerunner of eugenics?

Could an expert on Plato briefly look at the Eugenics page, where he is mentioned, without a source, as a forerunner of eugenics, and the first person to make calculations about human genetic inheritance. I suspect this may be taken from a book published in the first half of the 20th century, as an attempt to project eugenic thought back into history. I don't know whether current work on Plato's thought would interpret it in the same way. Many thanks if you are able to pop by. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest" (Rep. 5.459d) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NY Amateur (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Supprised there is no mention of Karl Popper and The Open Society and its Enemies Volume I: The Spell of Plato in the Criticism section. Popper would be a better representive of notable serious criticism than Carl Sagan. --24.44.148.66 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Popper used to be mentioned, but was removed per WP:FRINGE, as his criticism of Plato is not generally taken seriously (i.e., he is not considered to be a capable enough interpreter of Plato to be able to make worthwhile criticisms). Sagan is also probably not a good person to have, though. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/plato/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Editions

I created a section for Editions and included information on noteworthy or valuable historical and contemporary editions of Plato's works. I thought this would be good in part so that someone who wants to read and study Plato could have an idea of what sort of material is available. I tried to include references to sources for any claims as to the nature and value of the editions, but please improve if you feel compelled.--Atethnekos (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo in the Theory of Forms section

The second to last link in the Theory of Forms section is supposed to say 'properties' but it includes the word that follows, making the link read 'propertieswe'. I would change it myself, but I am new and I don't have a confirmed account with which to edit this locked article. MrMcCarthy (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another typo: in the 5th para of the Composition of Dialogues section, 'stylometric' is spelled 'stylometic' 180.149.62.52 (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Y Done RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link to note 83 is dead. The Youtube account that it links to has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.99.204 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

proposal to add (Further reading) "The Drama of Plato's Life" by Vladimir Soloviev

in "Further reading" a substantial work is missing: "The Drama of Plato's Life" by Vladimir Soloviev = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Solovyov_%28philosopher%29 http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Drama_of_Plato_s_Life.html

I've not found an ISBN for the book; it is also mentioned e.g. in

http://books.google.fr/books?id=2qWndU-nCDIC&lpg=PA12&ots=nRufmMOfl1&dq=Solovyov%20drama%20of%20life%20of%20plato&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=Solovyov%20drama%20of%20life%20of%20plato&f=false = Divine Sophia: The Wisdom Writings of Vladimir Solovyov By Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov, Judith Deutsch Kornblatt

90.52.75.54 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think further reading sections normally cover books that have more information on what the article discusses, not difficult to find books that are related to the article's subject. See WP:Further reading. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Birth Date?

I don't understand why Debra Nails "assertion" about Plato's birth date, contrary to all the evidence of ancient sources, has remained at the head of this article, while the evidence cited in the footnote on the matter points to earlier in the 420s?

Nails doesn't simply "assert" it; she in fact presents a long, detailed argument for it. However, I agree that her conclusion shouldn't be accepted as fact for the purposes of this article. She herself admits that 428/7 is "the traditional birth year" (The People of Plato, p. 247). And the fact that she does devote three whole pages of argument against that date is one indication of its prominence in the tradition of Plato scholarship. Nails' view is out of the ordinary, even if she happens to be right. I think that "c. 427" should be the birth date at the head of this article, as that is one most commonly cited. Besides, Nails' own estimation of 424/3 falls well within circa 427, by any reasonable measure. Isokrates (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Even though I happen to agree (strongly) with Nails's date, 428/7 is used by the majority of scholars, and this article should reflect that, especially in the lead. I'm sure there is room for a mention of alternate birth date hypotheses elsewhere in the article. CCS81 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Laurajennings, 28 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The allegory of the cave (often said by scholars to represent Plato's own epistemology and metaphysics) is intimately connected to his political ideology (often said to also be Plato's own), that only people who have climbed out of the cave and cast their eyes on a vision of goodness are fit to rule. Socrates claims that the enlightened men of society must be forced from their divine contemplations and BE compelled

Laurajennings (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I LOVE ONE DIRECTION

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.225.243 (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Plato's Real Name

Plato was not his real name, that is a nickname. His real name was Aristocles, he was named after his grandfather. http://plato-dialogues.org/faq/faq005.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.4 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC) nope, read the archives. this has been addressed.178.25.216.52 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that the issue is not discussed properly. Julia Annas, one of the leading experts in Plato in the world, thinks that Aristocles could actually be his real name (A very short introduction to Plato, Oxford, p. 12) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonPloug (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is moot. One expects a son named Aristokles after Ariston's father; such a son may have been born and died young. Annas does not demur on her asseveration that Plato was Plato's real name. Plato, ne´Aristokles, could have adopted the name Plato from some dead or lost relative: Andocides (I.35) mentions a Plato arrested for mutilating the Herms. This Plato could have been an oligarchical uncle of Plato and would have been executed in 411 or exiled. Note c based on Notopoulos is unconvincing. N proves nothing except there were a number of Platos in the record. He passes right over the Andocides Plato without seeing the importance of that Plato to the family of Aristokles. Note 10 is based on inference too. There is no Plato mentioned by name in the Republic. We assume that there were three brothers Aristonos, but one cannot get that inference from contemporary records, only from DL. Note 11 is also inference, a silly one I might add. There is a Plato mentioned by Xenophon in that passage, and we only assume that he is the brother of the Glaucon being questioned. The other person mentioned is Charmides, uncle to Glaucon, and so of another generation. Charmides, too, was arrested and exiled in 411 as I suggest Andocides' Plato was. If this is true Socrates undertakes to question Glaucon for the sake of his two disgraced uncles Plato and Charmides. Tdw1203 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Julia Annas states outright in "Plato: A Very Short Introduction" that "Plato's name was probably Plato." cagliost (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Plato as an anti-empiricist.

I have trouble accepting statements to the effect that Plato helped lay the foundation for western science: Western science is founded on empirical inquiry, something which Plato explicitly rejects. 89.204.253.121 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but western science is more than empiricism. Before one can say that empirical observations are the only way to gain knowledge about the world, one must already have established a kind of moral permission for intellectual skepticism. Plato was not the first to question things, but he did popularize the permissibility of philosophy like no one else. And to be fair, Plato rejects materialism; he does not say that one cannot learn about observable phenomena by observation, only that the most important things are not composed of atoms (ideas, for example). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant that Plato certainly managed to 'popularise' a particular brand of philosophy like no-one else, but the specific ideas he promoted within that philosophy arguably did more to hinder the course of western science than to advance it. Yes, science is more than empiricism: there's also the method of controlled experiment, occam's razor, falsifiability, etc.- none of which are concepts that Plato particularly helped to promote. I would also argue that Plato's belief in promulgating 'noble lies'- politically convenient fictions intended for the unwashed masses to swallow unquestioningly- is hardly advancing the general cause of intellectual skepticism.

At any rate, I believe this would constitute a 'significant minority viewpoint'. For example, taken from Studies in Humanism By F. C. S. Schiller-

"Plato's Anti-empirical Bias leads to misconstruction of Protagoras and Heraclitus, and ultimately ruins Greek science."

"We must affirm, therefore, that Plato's anti-empirical bias renders him profoundly anti-scientific, and that his influence has always, openly or subtly, counter-acted and thwarted the scientific impulse, or at least diverted it into unprofitable channels... ...And so, wherever this hypostasization and idolatry of concepts, and wherever these interpose between the mind and things, wherever they lead to disparagement of immediate experience, wherever the stubborn rigidity of prejudice refuses to adapt itself to the changes of reality, wherever the delusive answers of an a priori dialectics leave unanswered questions of inductive research, wherever words lure and delude, stupefy and paralyse, there Truth is sacrificed to Plato, even by barbarians who have never heard his name."

I would furthermore submit that this would count as a reliable source under general wikipedia guidelines, i.e, "magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". http://www.prometheusbooks.com/

You can search the text itself here: http://books.google.com/books?id=KL3sROAk2rwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Studies+in+Humanism+By+F.+C.+S.+Schiller&source=bl&ots=LU_iSSvrrO&sig=si8k2LZul2fjkQTT0Xw83aARDLk&hl=en&ei=ZRdjTIiUOYaT4ga02aXOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA

89.204.253.121 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. I didn't mean to suggest that your skepticism was misplaced, merely that the statement (which is also sourced) is not clearly mistaken. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

F.C.S. Schiller raises an important point, which is ultimately based on his own Aristotelian biases that have no place in an article on Plato. He claims that science is empirical. However, there is also theoretical, Platonic science. Knowledge in theoretical science arises from the logical relations between non-sensible fundamental concepts, and not from correlated but error-prone empirical instances. BlueMist (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For theoretical, Platonic science, please see Larry Scaff's --pedia which he compiles to contradict this Pedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdw1203 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and ancient influence

The section headed "Criticism" contains only a few sentences from Carl Sagan. Out of all the many critics of Plato in the last 2300 years or so, is Carl Sagan really that important, or even qualified as a philosopher or historian? I could see if his criticisms were listed as part of a much larger section that included criticisms from other philosophers and figures through the era, but as it is it seems a little strange.

Also, the section on Platonic scholarship begins with the influence of Aristotle eclipsing that of Plato in the Middle Ages. The problem that I see with this is that it ignores the profound influence of Platonism in the ancient world, from Plutarch to Plotinus to the early Christians. Why no mention of his influence on the "Middle" Platonists and Neoplatonism? I'm certainly not an expert and I may be wrong, but everything that I've read on the subject has led me to believe that the influence of Plato on the thinkers of late antiquity vastly outstripped that of Aristotle. Volkodlak (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Carl Sagan. Of course, we're missing things because no one has added them yet. If you have some more material, be bold and add it. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol 1) wrote the most definitive critique of Plato. .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.116.202 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Popper's views on Plato are not taken seriously by scholars. If I recall correctly, he was removed some time ago per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire Criticism section has been removed. Is Plato really beyond all criticism? Carl Sagan was a legitimate scientist (more legitimate than many philosophers, IMO) and I believe the sole voice of criticism of Plato should be restored to the article. For posterity's sake, I include it here: "Carl Sagan said of Plato: "Science and mathematics were to be removed from the hands of the merchants and the artisans. This tendency found its most effective advocate in a follower of Pythagoras named Plato." and "He (Plato) believed that ideas were far more real than the natural world. He advised the astronomers not to waste their time observing the stars and planets. It was better, he believed, just to think about them. Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world and disdain for the practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light of science and experiment that had been kindled by Democritus and the other Ionians."" 66.66.149.221 (talk)

I'm sure Sagan was a great astronomer, but he is not taken seriously as a Plato scholar, nor are his words so important that they must be included in any article that covers something he spoke about, whether in his area of expertise or not. A criticism section that includes only minor thinkers gives them undue weight. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

References

The "Gay Plato"? etc

I see a budding edit war. The inclusions have source problems.

The Borody source is fine for what it is. If you go through Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship and the like, you see that pieces as sources can be considered reliable on a few different grounds: The influence and acceptance of the piece itself, the influence and acceptance of the editorial process of the publisher of the piece, the influence and acceptance of the author of the piece. Let's look at the Borody source. No one cites it, so it's not on the basis of the piece itself. The piece is published and edited solely by Ken Stange, a fellow professor of Borody's at [[Nipissing University] on his own website. Stange is a psychology professor, who has no apparent qualifications in the field of historiography or history of philosophy in general nor in biography of Plato in particular. He has published the piece according to his, in his own words, "eclectic and idiosyncratic interests". He is not presenting the piece as in line with any particular editorial rigour, he is only presenting it as aligning with his idiosyncrasies. So it's not on the basis of the editorial process that the piece can be considered reliable. Wayne Borody is a qualified professor of philosophy tenured at an accredited institution with pieces concerning history of philosophy published in peer-reviewed outfits. So his pieces may be considered a reliable source on that basis -- for matters in which he has been established. Has Borody been established in biography of Plato? I would say that is questionable -- he has been published concerning the philosophy of Plato, and the biography of Plato is certainly a related matter, but it is not necessary to know the details of the biography of Plato in order to know the philosophy of Plato.

In this case, what is being included is not established by Borody anyway. Borody does not say anything like that "there remains a significant question over whether or not Plato was gay" or that "a group of predominately aristocratic gay men discuss the nature of love, from a specifically homoerotic perspective" or that "dialogues besides the Symposium ... portray homosexuality and bisexuality as normative praxis in Athens at the time, a praxis with which Plato appears to self-identify in his dialogues". All of this would need reliable sources. Included is a term within quotation marks, the "gay Plato". Whence this term and concept? Borody does not use it. What is its origin? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mayan Universities Before Athens Acedemy

This statement is false: "... founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world" There are records of Central American Universities, built by the Mayans, before Plato's time. Minecrafters (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally the ancient Mayan societies are not subsumed under the heading of "Western World", so the statement does not seem to be false. You would also have to supply your sources. For example, in contrast, Timothy G. Reagan says in Non-western educational traditions: Indigenous approaches to educational thought and practice (3rd ed.), chapter 4 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005): "If we know a great deal more today about the history and politics of the Maya, however, our knowledge about their views about childrearing and education, as well as of their specific educational practices and institutions, remains largely conjectural in nature." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the founding of Plato's Academy we're talking about early Mayan civilization when it's not clear whether the Maya had yet acquired a fully developed written script. Without a proper written script, it's highly questionable whether you can have anything considered to be higher education. But, more to the point, "university" is a term far too often abused by pseudo-historians due to the status it has acquired in its European context where it originated. Notice that Plato's Academy isn't called a university, nor is Aristotle's Lyceum called a university even though the Lyceum was probably the first school where a complete and systematic natural philosophy was being taught. The closest thing that the ancient world had to the medieval European University was the Musaeum connected to the Library of Alexandia, but few would go as far as calling it a university.

For something to be called a "university" as this term is commonly defined (note that this is not a generic term for higher education), it has to fulfill several basic requirements; it has to be a school of higher learning, it has to be secular in nature, it has to have a fixed curiculum and it has to have clearly defined examination procedures/degrees. Additionally, one historically very important aspect was the autonomous nature of medieval European Universities, i.e. their non-reliance on external authorities for their educational policies. Put together, no pre-modern non-European educational institutions fit the bill although I do find the Musaeum in Alexandria to be a noteworthy parallell. Abvgd (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Is there something off about the reference list? There are a lot of "ref name="s which don't seem to be necessary and look to be actually used incorrectly, the first 20 or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asisman (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

I am a registered wikipedia user and an executive at Parmenides Publishing. I would like to add 5 Plato titles to the Plato References that have been published by Parmenides Publishing:

• A Stranger's Knowledge: Statesmanship, Philosophy, and Law in Plato's Statesman" by Xavier Márquez, 2012, ISBN 978-1-930972-79-7
• One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today Edited by Richard D. Mohr and Barbara M. Sattler, 2010, ISBN 978-1-930972-32-2
• Platonic Patterns: A Collection of Studies by Holger Thesleff, 2009, ISBN 978-1-930972-29-2
• Plato's Parmenides: Text, Translation & Introductory Essay by Arnold Hermann, 2010, ISBN 978-1-930972-71-1
• PRESOCRATICS & PLATO: Festschrift at Delphi in Honor of Charles Kahn Edited by Richard Patterson, Vassilis Karasmanis and Arnold Hermann, Preface by Charles Kahn, 2013, ISBN 978-1-930972-75-9

GaleCarrLV (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - The references section is the place to list books that were used to prepare the article, not the place to list books about Plato. -- Dianna (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

New page for "List of Works by Plato"

I've just had a look at this article, searching for a list of his works, and there doesn't seem to be one. It might be a good idea for a new page -- if authors like Edgar Allan Poe and Shakespeare can have "List of Works by..." articles, why can't Plato? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.71.120 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

plato or socrates

I've been reading this entry and it seems that large parts of the Philosophy section attribute thoughts to Socrates that really should be attributed to Plato. I don't know the subject well enough to correct it, but perhaps someone else does... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.46.115 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the body of this article about Socrates and not about Plato? What are Plato's views on the issues discussed here? This is a bad article at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.92.97.111 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

could just be vandalism from some philosophy undergrad student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.110.90 (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. Someone fix this. I would, but I can't. I've read only a paragraph and everywhere it should mention Plato it mentions Socratese. It appears this error has been around for the better part of 8 months. Time to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason no one is changing it is because it would be wrong to change it. Plato wrote dialogues in which Socrates was the main character. We cannot say that the Socratic character was Plato's mouthpiece, yet the dialogues are the only statements we have from Plato (the letters are mostly dubious). This is standard practice when discussing Plato's works. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the article needs to be changed. It may well be that there is a case to be made that Plato made Socrates a character in a work of quasi-fiction, and the character was largely a mouthpiece for Plato's own thoughts. And it may well be that in certain circles that is now assumed. But that still makes it a thesis and you need to at least state that is a thesis and the case for that thesis in a context like this. Has it also been proven that all of Socrates' supposed thoughts are actually Plato's? Unless that is so there is no basis for the general assumption that that is true made in this article. --174.7.56.10 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Metaphysics portion is the same. It discusses primarily Socrates. To say that Socrates influenced Plato by his thoughts on xyz is acceptable. To say that 'Plato writes that Socrates said...' is maybe acceptable. To simply write 'Socrates said ABC...' without reference to how this influenced Plato, or what Plato's reaction was makes this inclusion irrelevant to a discussion of Plato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re34646 (talk • contribs) 14:43, December 14, 2011‎

To say that "Socrates says X" might be problematic, but the section on metaphysics notes that it is discussing what the character Socrates says in the Republic. Having said it once, it would be awkward to repeat "the Platonic Socrates" or "Plato makes Socrates say" or "in the Republic, the character Socrates (who may or may not correspond to the historical Socrates)," etc. I think the context supplies the supposed defect in this case. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Article on Plato was a wonderful article.

Plato used empirical methods in his question and answer dialog. What most people do not understand is the difference Plato makes between the observable and the unobservable. Aristotle was more of an Empiricist than Plato was but then again, Aristotle went against his teacher in certain things and agreed with him in others taking much of Plato's teachings and giving them his own twist. Some contributors here have expressed their own interpretations of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. I believe that any writing is open to interpretation from the reader. There is no question of right or wrong in the opinions and criticisms to this article. There is only a question of whether the information or writings were understood by the reader (ex. the allegory of the cave) as written originally by the masters and expressed by the author here, or whether the reader is contributing not their understanding of the matter as previously written, but their own bias, interpretations, and prejudices in the disseminated writings. I believe that some of the opinions expressed here are misconstrued, not very relevant or out of place (ex. bringing Sagan as knowledgeable or informative on the subject). Sagan in context here is a good example of misconstrued ideas or misinterpretation of the subject in question. Sagan was an amazing physicist and astronomer with his own ideas about religion (Atheist till he died). I believe that Aristotle should be mentioned here and the comments expressed in this article are quite based not on opinionated bias but on a good translation of the understanding in the writings of Plato. Plato did not favor slavery, Aristotle did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.112.6 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Cosmology

Overall, this page is really great. It has a lot of detailed information and one can learn many things in regards to Plato. However the subject of Cosmology was not discussed and is maybe something to add in the future. Cosmology is the study of origins and the eventual fate of the universe. Plato studied this and had beliefs on this subject. He believed the universe was spherical and that the universe has harmonies and mathematical proportions. He also said that the universe rotates and the that universe is "alive" -soul of the world. There could also be a little more detail on his work Timaeus. Other than that this is great! (chriscorbaz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscorbaz (talk • contribs) 06:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Theory of Knowledge as presented in Theatetus

The article states that Plato claims in Theatetus that knowledge is justified true belief, but this is exactly what Socrates argues against in the Theatetus dialogue. Socrates uses the example of a judge in court making the correct ruling on a case as a result of being persuaded by the lawyer to a certain view which may or may not be true. Now the lawyer provided justification for the judge to hold this view, so the view held by the judge may be a justified belief, and it may even be true, but it could also be false and the judge simply would not know this. Socrates attempts to show us here that there is a difference between persuasion and knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.27.43 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Epistemology (Knowledge)

There is a paragraph inside "Recurrent ideas" section, about innate ideas, that could well be included, maybe with some modifications, into the "Epistemology" section. It would improve the exposition about Plato's theory of knowledge. If there are no objections, I will proceed with this.--Auró (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Epistemology (Knowledge)

There is a paragraph inside "Recurrent ideas" section, about innate ideas, that could well be included, maybe with some modifications, into the "Epistemology" section. It would improve the exposition about Plato's theory of knowledge. If there are no objections, I will proceed with this.--Auró (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Robinson, Arch. Graec.

What is the reference to Robinson, Arch. Graec. I i 16? The relevant claim(quotation?) is all mangled, and I want to clean it up, but I don't know what this collection is supposed to be. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's John Robinson's 1827: [1]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Louis Hartz

Right now the section on Dialectic has:

A similar interpretation has been put forth by Louis Hartz, who suggests that elements of the dialectic are borrowed from Hegel.(ref)Hartz, Louis. 1984. A Synthesis of World History. Zurich: Humanity Press(ref) According to this view, opposing arguments improve upon each other, and prevailing opinion is shaped by the synthesis of many conflicting ideas over time. Each new idea exposes a flaw in the accepted model, and the epistemological substance of the debate continually approaches the truth. Hartz's is a teleological interpretation at the core, in which philosophers will ultimately exhaust the available body of knowledge and thus reach "the end of history."

I'm not sure what to make of this obviously mis-framed report (which is implying that Plato borrowed from Hegel). Does anyone know: Does Hartz say anything about Plato's use of dialectic? My library does not have this book. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done the citation formatting, more or less

I'm more or less done with the mass amount of edits for the citation formatting. I didn't make many substantive changes: The vast majority of it was just putting most of the citations into the list + sfn format. The only substantive changes I think were pretty uncontroversial, where the material was not supported or even obviously problematic: [2] [3] [4]. Thanks for bearing with me! I think my next project for the page will be to beef up the currently almost-entirely unreferenced Metaphysics and Theory of Forms sections. The opening line is: '"Platonism" is a term coined by scholars to refer to the intellectual consequences of denying, as Plato's Socrates often does, the reality of the material world.' Which I think is at the very least squarely NPOV, if not unverifiable. Cf: the opening pages of Gerson's new From Plato to Platonism. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

Is "wre" = "were".66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

The paragraph about the chronology of the middle dialogues ends with footnote 85 (referring to Brandwood, Leonard (1990). The Chronology of Plato's Dialogues. Cambridge University Press. p251.) Then I would have the following sentence in that paragraph supplemented with a referral to Brandwood's opposing conclusion:

"Proponents of dividing the dialogues into periods often consider the Parmenides and Theaetetus to come late in this period and be transitional to the next, as they seem to treat the theory of Forms critically (Parmenides) or not at all (Theaetetus)."

ADDITION: "Ritter's stylometric analysis places Phaedrus as probably after Theaetetus and Parmenides [which is adopted by Brandwood, 77, 251], although it does not relate to the theory of Forms in the same way."

Also, the notion that the Theaetetus does not refer at all to the theory of forms contradicts the wikipage on the theory of Forms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms#Dialogues_that_discuss_Forms The lines referred to (184-186) discuss the interpretation of perceptions by the mind, which makes the purposiveness of animal behavior problematic (as they have no comparable 'mind'). If, however, Plato puts more capacity into perception, the effort to prove that knowledge cannot be perception becomes greater as well^1. This is no direct referral to the Republic or the theory of Forms, but it contributes indirectly to the more general objection of the one/many separation problem. I would change the 'not at all' into 'indirectly'.

thank you.

1. Plato, Theaetetus. Translated by M. J. Levett; revised by Myles Burnyeat; edited by Bernard Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992. p 63.

Wijcher (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I've altered the observation on Theaetetus and forms as requested, but the Ritter claim needs a specific citation, which I haven't found on a cursory search. Since I'm not familiar with the state of the field in Plato studies, I'm also not sure whether referencing Ritter, whose work is rather old, in juxtaposition to Brandwood's 1990 work would count as giving Ritter's conclusions undue weight. Feel free to reactivate the request whenever you have a response to those concerns. Thanks! —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

On review, I misunderstood what you were proposing to add. I've now added your other proposed edit to the article, so consider this Done. Thanks again. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

117.197.99.140 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dialogues translated by Thomas Taylor

We've put together a collection (original scans) of Thomas Taylor's translation of the Dialogues (first translation into English, 1804). So far as we can tell it's the only full PDF scan (without pages missing). Perhaps it could be added to External Links: Works available on-line? We also intend to put together html versions over the coming year, which will be made available from the same page. Here's the link: http://www.universaltheosophy.com/dialogues-of-plato/ 24.85.208.12 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange Sentence in Pythagoras Section

"the influence of Pythagoras upon Plato also appears to have significant discussion in the philosophical literature."

One would think that what should be said here is that "Pythagoras significantly influenced Plato." Or perhaps, "per the philosophical literature, Pythagoras appears to have significantly influenced Plato."

But what this actually states if that there has apparently (the writer of the sentence is not sure?) been significant *discussion* of Pythagoras influencing Plato, although even that is stated ungrammatically. (Should be "appears to have generated significant discussion".)

In any case, this should be rewritten to clarify what is really meant here. GeneCallahan (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence is awkward. Edit request reasonable? Second Dark (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)