Talk:Socrates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Socrates' existence

Do we know for CERTAIN that Socrates existed? My understanding was that that issue was still up in the air. --Dante Alighieri 01:05 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Not at all. Perahps it would be if he was only known from Plato's dialogues, but he's discussed by the historian Xenophon and mocked by the comic Aristophanes, possibly among others.

Unless there was another Socrates, he's also mentioned by Thucydides. Adam Bishop 00:56, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now this is ridiculous. One might as well question whether René Descartes existed. And then, how can we be certain you exist? --Eequor 02:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

It's quite evident from Descartes' writings that he cannot think, therefore by his own reason he does not exist. - Centrx 16:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks, thats great. i'll have to remember that. not much on wikipedia makes me laugh. --Heah (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

haha... that is one of the funniest things I have ever read! Frank Carmody 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe funny, but erroneous reasoning, because even if it's true to say "Person P thinks, therefore P exists", it's not necessarily true to say "Person P can't think, therefore P doesn't exist." Centrx has committed the fallacy of Denying the antecedent.

• The fact that many people spoke of him and claimed influence from him (Xenophon and Plato to quote only the two most famous) show that he existed...

Many people spoke of Jesus the Messiah and claimed influence from him.

Yes, and Jesus also existed. TheTruth12 17:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

All this blind faith is touching, but there's not an erg of evidence that Socrates was anything but a rhetorical device. For example, he never "wrote" anything...forcing the faithful to rationalize that he must have been illiterate. There's no purely mundane reference to him, for example a formal record of his execution. He's like Troy, something which is referred to in a way which has nothing to do with historicity, and yet which people have blindly accepted for so long that now they're horrified when someone points out the utter lack of hard evidence. --Kaz 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As A.R. Lacey said in a 1971 article on Socrates: "The evidence, inadequate though it is, is too widespread to allow such an agnosticism without insisting on a degree of rigour we are unwilling to use elsewhere...." For example, if you're willing to call Socrates' existence into question, why not call into question George Washington's? After all, "all" we have in support of thinking Washington existed is a bunch of dusty old books that claim he existed!! Very touching indeed; but does this make us question that he existed?

Almost all the characters in Plato's dialogues are historical: why would Socrates be an exception? We have a letter of Plato's, believed to be genuine (the Seventh Letter), which mentions the historical figure Socrates. Socrates is explicitly presented as a historical figure by Xenophon and Aristotle. He plays a part in Aristophanes play BEFORE any dialogues appear. We also have fragments from a number of other writers who were contempories of Socrates who mention him. There is copious mention of a great deal of lost texts that mention Socrates, which survived certainly into Roman times. Every single ancient author up to Roman times, who says either way, believes he is a historical figure, and clearly they were in a better position to judge. One would have to be a very bad historian not to believe that this points to Socrates' existence. Dast 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, most hisorians also believe Troy was a historical place, like the majority of places in Homer (not including, of course, such places as Hades). Dast 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite clear that the article as it currently stands is wrong, and also expresses an extreme minority position as if it were not one. I shall correct the error (it is not true that only followers mentioned him). And I shall reduce the emphasis upon this minority position. The arguments expressed are ridiculous. Why should a lack of writing be proof of anything? We have no writing from nearly everyone of Socrates' generation. Perhaps Athens did not exist. Furthermore the people who mentioned Socrates first hand and second came from many backgrounds and did not even use him to symbolize the same thing, so he can not be a "rhetorical device". We have more proof that Socrates existed than nearly anyone from that period. ~~

Absolutely. I'm removing the sentence. Wikipedia seems to be being used here as a forum for some sort of academic debate. Primary sources are being evaluated in an effort to establish the veracity of almost universal academic consensus. All of the above arguments are very interesting (if not very credible) but the fact remains that the article as it stands contradicts academic consensus. The purpose of Wikipedia has never been to establish and to report the truth, only to report what is written down by authoritative sources. If anyone knows of any source please reinsert but not so prominently - there isn't much controversy about whether S existed.--Lo2u 13:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is likely that Socrates existed, because he was a subject of reference by more than one writer. However, the long, complicated dialogues of Plato cannot possibly be a true record of his words. No one could have remembered such extended conversations in such detail and have written them exactly as they occurred. The dialogues are a fictional creation by Plato.Lestrade 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Absolutely. Even more, the vast majority are not even trying to be conversations he might of had. I think the article reflects this fact reasonably well. Dast 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Socrates' marriage

Not a critical point, but regarding Socrates' marriage, I guess there are some conflicting views. Namely, Xanthippe may or may not be the only wife.

The following page discusses the issue rather in detail. http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/socrates/wpages39toendpt1.html

See also: http://www.cnu.edu/academics/phil/carr/SocraBio.htm http://www.san.beck.org/Plato-Intro.html

Tomos 17:37 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

In the commentaries to Phaedo, I've found this : About Xanthipe, Diogenes Laert says the following: Aristotle says that Socrates had two wifes; by the first one, Xanthipe, he had a son Lamprocles, by the second one, Xanthipe, he had sons Sophronisk and Menescen. It is said by others that Mirtha was his first wife. And again, others say that he was married to both of them at once, this is said by Satyr and Hyeronim of Rhodes. Could somebody check this up, and possibly do a rewrite of the biographical section? Thanks. May-hem 08:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Diogenes Laertius (Lives 2.26) is our only source for this story. He is often unreliable, particularly when he doesn't name his source. Here his source appears to be Aristotle, but the remark about Myrto appears nowhere in the extant works of Aristotle. Since Plutarch mentions Aristotle in connection with a story of Myrto and Socrates' involvement, it's pretty safe to conjecture that Plutarch was using the same source as Diogenes was. But Plutarch says that the Myrto-Socrates story is found in a work titled On Good Birth, which was attributed to Aristotle, but which (as Plutarch himself points out) may not have actually been written by Aristotle. In any case, the Myrto-Socrates story that Plutarch relates does not involve a marriage between Myrto and Socrates; Plutarch's source says only that Socrates, who was already married, attended to Myrto's financial concerns when she became a widow. This was not unusual and obviously doesn't entail a marriage to Myrto. I suspect that this was the source of Diogenes' story, and that Diogenes simply misinterpreted the passage; if Aristotle had really implied anything like what Diogenes reports, surely Plutarch would have mentioned it in his discussion of the topic. There is simply no other evidence of a marriage between Socrates and Myrto, or any other woman besides Xanthippe. (For the quotations of the relevant passages from Diogenes and Plutarch, see The Complete Works of Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes, vol. 2, p. 2423.)

Demos and democracy

What is the basis for the claim that Socrates supported the democracy?

Nonexistent, IMO. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:42, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

He fought for his country (rather, his polis) when it was under military attack, but his scorn for democracy would seem to have come out again and again. Is his admiration for the life of Sparta and Crete universally consdiered to be a fabrication? Again, "enemy" would seem rather a strong term for Critias' attitude toward him: that fellow's enemies tended to suffer something rather worse than being allowed to go home and keep their mouths shut.

That phrasing is from my keyboard, and I agonized over it. I don't think "estranged" covers it, nor "disfavour". Finally I plumped for "enemy", half in frustration, half in the hope that someone would come and moderate the statement with a more apposite phrasing, because I could not. The fact remains that he (Critias) did not remain part of Socrates' circle, and there was some degree of animus between them due to the (lack of) Socrates' role in the 30 tyrants fracas. -- CAoap

While we're up, is "satirical distortions" (of Aristophanes) a reasonable term? All satire tends to distort, after all; the reader, knowing this, is invited to think that these were more distorted than those of, say, Voltaire or Swift—a highly debatable view. Dandrake 01:45, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hope my recent edits addressed this problem. If not, feel free to adjust the phrasing. What this article lacks BTW is coverage of the whole 30 tyrants thing, and also Socrates as the prytanie (sp?) during the judicial murder of the generals of the Sicilian campaign. I've been meaning to get to it for a long time. I've got most of my sources pretty well organized, but this article is just so central, that I a a bit intimidated of making an extensive addition. I know I shouldn't, but the fact remains. -- CAoap

And perhaps someone can speak to the association b/t Plato's family and one of the Tyrants? +sj+

Apostrophes' Troublemaking

Looks as if we're in for an apostrophe dispute. I reverted a change that added back an s to Socrates' after another person had removed them all. It is traditional in many places to use the form Socrates' , so much so that the Chicago Manual of Style used to list Jesus, Moses, and Socrates as exceptions to the usual rule of adding 's to words and names ending in s. The latest edition goes further: generally, Greek names in s get only the apostrophe.

Perhaps this is a trans-Atlantic difference in usage. But before the international incidents get under way, will supporters of Socrates's please give some citations? Dandrake 17:39, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

No desire for a dispute here! Hi, Beowulf king. I didn't notice that just before my edit you had removed all the final possessive esses; good to know Chicago has a special category for Greek names. [I was browsing the recent changes list b/c the last editor before B.k. was an anon IP formerly used to vandalize other pages...] As a proofreader, I'm most glad to have learned another acceptable usage case. +sj+ 08:40, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

Actually, I got it wrong, from memory, though close enough for this purpose. What they really say: "Names of more than one syllable with an unaccented ending pronounced -eez"; and then there are Jesus' and Moses' cases as well. Dandrake 22:28, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the double-check. I suppose Moses and Jesus both have unaccended last syllables. So if a hispanic user named JeSUS starts posting, we can safely have this argument again? +sj+ 08:16, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

And more and more

However, the person whose unacceptable user name has been canceled (thanks, Ed) was right in the substance of the personal-attack comment that has been deleted per policy (thanks again): there are four Cardinal Virtues in Christian tradition, and I've never heard of the existence of a comparable earlier list with any number of entries. So I'm changing the text, subject to correction by anyone who have find a calssic Greek list of five. Dandrake 19:55, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Socrates and Hemlock

The article on Hemlock contains the following statement:

The Greek philosopher Socrates supposedly drank one of above toxic hemlocks to fulfil his execution sentence. However, this story is now known to be a myth, although Socrates is commonly linked to this form of suicide.

Does anyone have any modern references which can verify or disprove this statement that the story is a myth? WormRunner | Talk 03:48, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Cicuta virosa. --Eequor 03:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

But this doesn't have to do with Socrates. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At least one ancient source that is good evidence that he did is Plato's Phaedo. Also, this was common practise for someone sentenced to death in 5th cen. Athens.

Plato's Phaedo doesn't mention "hemlock" (or "kōneion" in Greek), though it does say that Socrates drank a "drug" or "potion" that caused his death. (Hemlock is mentioned in Plato's Lysis 219e, but not in connection with Socrates' death.) The idea that the drug in question was hemlock came from later commentators who inferred this from its common use in other contemporary situations (see Xenophon's Hellenica 2.3.56 and Aristophanes' Frogs 123). In the Phaedo Plato describes the effects of the drug on Socrates which are sometimes thought to be inconsistent with the effects that hemlock would have actually had. See http://www.nd.edu/~plato/bloch.htm

His claims

It does Socrates an injustice to say that he claimed that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one; he argued it clearly and (some would say) convincingly. But may we have a statement of why it merely seems at first glance to be paradoxical when he claims to be wiser than others on the basis of his understanding that he knows nothing? It's a clever paradox, in fact. Dandrake 08:25, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't really a paradox. The idea that one's knowledge includes the knowledge that one lacks knowledge does not conflict with a claim that one possesses knowledge; by such a statement, one demonstrates that one possesses knowledge beyond that of a person who lacks the knowledge that they lack knowledge. --Eequor 12:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Whereas one says, "I know that I know nothing" another can ask, "how do you know that"? In which confusion sets in. Why not understand it as, "I don't know that I know anything"?

Plato never actually has Socrates claim, "I know that I know nothing." The closest text we have to that is probably Apology 22c-d, where Socrates says, "I was conscious/aware of knowing so to speak nothing." The Greek text actually has the qualification "so to speak"; Socrates is careful not to say, "I know that I know nothing." I agree with Eequor: All Socrates is really saying is that he knows that he lacks a certain kind of knowledge; for example, in one passage (Apology 22d), he appears to be saying only that he knows that he's ignorant about the greatest matters. If this is what he is ignorant about, then there is no paradox in claiming that he does have knowledge about other matters. (Apology 21d may appear to be another place where he claims not to know anything, but if you read carefully, you'll find that all he's saying in that passage is that he doesn't know anything admirable and good - i.e., anything worthwhile.)

Greek form of name

I've put in the Greek form of his name with a romanisation. Does anyone have any opinions on whether this is a Good Thing? If it is, I might do the same to other entries. Greek form checked in LSJ. m.e. 12:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please be cautious. This has the potential of starting Demotic/Katharevsa/Attic edit wars, which are unnecessary. Thank you for transliterating η as ē and not i. (If such an edit war starts, I will remove the transliteration and defend its absence.) Septentrionalis 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

joints

There are a couple of places where socrates mentions the problem of the joints. It seems linked to the problem of definition and categories. I've let this act as a core for which to form associations. Have you thought about it? I have some answers but would like to hear ideas unaffected by mine. Thanks. WblakesxWblakesx 05:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beliefs Section

The whole section on Philosophical Beliefs came straight from my senior research paper. Here is the works cited page from that report:

Chin, Beverly, et. al., eds. Glencoe World Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000.

Gross, Ronald. “Socrates: Mentor for humanists.” Free Inquiry Spring 2003: p. 57. Expanded Academic ASAP. The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 1 Dec 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.

“Socrates.” Discovering Biography. Online Edition 2003. Student Resource Center. The Gale Group. Newark High Library, Newark, DE. December 1, 2004. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC>.

Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins. A Short History of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

“The Religion of Socrates.” Ancient Philosophy Spring 1998: p. 174-177. SIRS Renaissance. SIRS Mandarin, Inc. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 1 Dec 2004. <http://sks.sirs.com>.

Thomas, Henry. Understanding the Great Philosophers. Gorden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1962.

• This is not a credible list of references. Please use texts specifically dedicated to Plato and Socrates. Larvatus 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

---

Should it really be states that Socrates is ugly ? Isn't that more for tabloids and magazines and not encyclopedias.

• Yes, Socrates' looks are cardinal to his erotic character: the seducer of beautiful young men onto the path of virtue. See Alcibiades' comparisons of Socrates to the statues of Silenus and the satyr Marsyas in the Symposium. Larvatus 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

- I think its relevant, considering its what one of the few pieces of information we have about it. Furthermore, I know at least one philosopher (Nietzsche) has used Socrates's ugliness as a basis for attacking his beliefs. I think he somehow meant that since Socrates was ugly he was an enemy of art and tragedy. This of course has to do with the whole Apollonian/Dionysian duality that Nietzsche loved to rant about it and how Socrates destroyed the Dionysian side and ruined Greek culture, yatta yatta yatta, I don't really know, but I think its relevant.

• Some well-informed readers such as Pierre Hadot make a great deal out of Nietzsche's love/hate attitude towards Socrates. But in speaking of Socrates himself, at the expense of his proto-postmodern epigoni, we are better advised to examine his disparagement by that primordial advocate of "will to power", Callicles, in the Gorgias, and the contradictory attitudes of Alcibiades brought to the fore in his speech in the Symposium. In the former instance, Plato makes Socrates suffer Callicles' disparagement of his preoccupation with philosophy as unseemly for an adult, akin to childish lisping. On the latter occasion, Socrates is shown repudiating carnal desires for the sake of his unfulfillable pursuit of the ideal exemplars of their corporeal objects. Plato's account of his grotesque appearance serves as a vivid setting for these insults and privations. Larvatus 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Garlic dildo?

"It is not known whether or not Socrates had a fully-functional phallos, but it's been proven by historians that he used one carved out of garlic, instead." Um, WTF?

This is a) enough of a shocking claim to warrant at least a citation, and preferably more explanation, and b) a bit of a non-sequitur.

Delorted! --FOo 05:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping it would turn out to be true. --teucer

Beleifs revisited

I have some MAJOR issues with the "philosophical beleifs" section of this article. to being with, it in no way mentions that it is difficult to ascertain what Socrates beleived as opposed to Plato, where we get most of our accounts of Socrates. More importantly, it states as fact what are actually non-neutral stands on hotly debated issues of platonic/socratic philosophy. imo they miss the depth of the Platonic drama. It is very debatable as to whether or not Socrates thought philosophers shold actually rule as kings- notice his constant mention of how he CANNOT go to politics, as his deamon always tells him it is wrong; notice the irony of a rhetorical/dramatic masterpeice going on and on about how art is bad because the author doesn't using his own voice when Plato is having Socrates narate the entire Republic. and etc.

It seems to me, if there is going to be a philosophical beleifs of Socrates section, it should make clear the difficulty of ascertaining his thoughts and should use PRIMARY sources to provide some of socrates' beleifs. There is much that i personally beleive is of greater significance and should go in this section, eg the philosophic path as laid out in the symposium and the phaedrus, the search for the GOOD (not necessarily as a "Form"), etc.

so lets all talk about before i single handedly enforce my opinions on the article. we should be able to come to some concensus about what should be there and what should not. but what is there now is only one possible interpretation of his thought, cited only through secondary sources with their own interpretations. we should make clear the variety of possible interpretation and try to use primary source material as much as possible, as this is an encyclopedia.Heah 18:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ok nobody said anything so i've gone ahead and done a preliminary edit of the section, trying to be fair and impartial. Citations will be forthcoming where needed and/or requested; it all comes from the text. at the moment i've only noted the dialogue from which something was taken and not the Stephanus pages.Heah 18:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

method

does anyone know why "socratic method" was merged with this page? it really should have its own entry, as it isn't about socrates, but a teaching style we have named after him.Heah 20:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

since there haven't been any objections and ALoan consented, I've merged "socratic method" back to Socratic method. Please help with the reorganization and clarification of that page. Heah 21:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate and Deathdate

How come Socrates is showing up as dying in 399 AD!!. Was I shocked, since I am studying a period 800 years later than him. The article has been edited to include his birthday as June 7th, 470 BC, but has not yet been edited in regards to his death: May 7th, 399 BC.

http://www.born-today.com/Today/06-04.htm
http://quotes.tubegator.com/socrates.php
http://members.aol.com/kitecd/c_hmay.htm

I'll add the month and day, and if someone else feels it necessary to update more than that, I would appreciate it.

I saw an anon change the birth year to 469 BC, and there are some references on the web to that. My copy of the Britannica gives c.470, so I reverted to 470 and added the c. Experts feel free to modify.-gadfium 05:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The specificity of the dates in the opening sentence of the main article is ridiculous. The fact is that we can't be sure of such exact dates. Even at the time the ancient Greeks generally didn't keep track of or celebrate birthdays the way us moderns do. In Socrates case, we do have evidence, independent of Plato's dialogues, that places his death in 399: due to Diogenes Laertius's Lives 2.44, we know that Demetrius Phalereus, in his register of the archons of Athens, claimed that Socrates died during the archonship of Laches, which (as Diogenes Laertius explains) corresponded to first year of the 95th Olympiad, which straddles the years 400 and 399, by our reckoning. (This information is also found in the Parian Chronicle, as well as in Diodorus Siculus's Library 14.37.7.) It's this fact, together with Socrates' claim in Plato's Apology 17d and Crito 52e that he is seventy (though, according to one of our texts of the Apology, Socrates claims to be "more than seventy"), that makes many people claim that Socrates was born in 469 or 470. Even if we grant all this, we don't know for certain whether his birthyear was 469 or 470, because we don't know for certain at what time of year his trial and execution occurred. Plato's Phaedo 58a-c indicates that his trial happened to begin at the start of the Delian festival and that his execution occurred at the end of that fesitval (and according to Xenophon's Memorabilia 4.8.2 Socrates spend thirty days in prison before execution). But we can't say for certain when exactly in our calendar that would have occurred. According to many scholars, the Delian festival would have occurred during our month of February or March (which is why most put Socrates' death at 399, rather than 400, since the Athenian year began in the summer). (Footnote 1 on the Perseus version of Xenophon's Memorabilia is mistaken; see C.J. Rowe's Plato: Phaedo (Cambridge U., 1993), p. 109. Debra Nails gives the same month as the Perseus text, but she cites no source.) This is also why some prefer 470 as a closer estimation of Socrates' birthyear, since if he was 70 in February or March of 399 then he was probably born in 470, unless we imagine that he had just turned seventy at the time of his trial.—This unsigned comment was added by Isokrates (talk • contribs) March 2006.

I concur and would find it surprising if anyone disagreed with this extremely well argued case by Anon. To add to the absurdity it reads '4 June, ca. 469 BC' - so they year is in doubt but apparently the date is exact. I'm making the amendments, including changing the year of birth to c. 470. Dast 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like the birth date was editted out. It still appears on the June 4 list of births however. Abisai

Redirection

Why does Daimonion redirect here?

See Trial of Socrates; but I made it redirect to Daemon, which seems better in any case. Septentrionalis 20:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

restoration of philosophy section

i've restored the philosophy section, having been deleted a month ago by an anon ip. if people have problems with it please discuss and fix it as you see fit, but there is no reason that i can see to eliminate it entirely . . . --Heah (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A few changes

I would like to, slowly, make the following general changes and would welcome some feed back:

• Referencing all major or controversial claims, the former to the primary sources and the latter to the secondary source or sources where the claim is debated.

  This is WP policy. Go ahead. Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Including the relevant Stephanus page on all references to Platonic dialogues (e.g. 'I do not think I know what I do not know' Apology (21d)). This would take up relatively little space and would help readers and editers.

  This is a wiki. Better to link to the passage at Perseus; the Stephanus would be a reasonable label. Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps its better to link to the passage, but there is that whole "quotations" section and the texts are referenced throughout the article. when a text is referenced, there is of course no need to actually include (ie display word-for-word) the sentence/passage being referenced, but i don't beleive that this is what dast was suggesting- the stephanus as the label and the label linking to perseus would probably be ideal. --Heah (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Dast.

• Including the latinate Greek word for the major Socratic concepts (e.g. virtue (aretē))

  Cui bono? The Hellenist does not want them; the Greekless reader will not benefit. Wikipedia is not a support group for cocktail-party poseurs. Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. arete is not the same as the english word "virtue", and clarification of such points is beneficial. This sort of thing is important for anyone curious about greek thought, not just "cocktail party poseurs."--Heah (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

To second Heah: I understand your concern, but placing the original in brackets after a translated word is a fairly universal indication that we must approach the translated word with caution. I don't speak German, but if I read a German translation and see an original German word after its translation I realise that caution is needed and I might be inspired to investigate this word. Also, those in between the Hellenist and the Greekless reader would appreciate the clarification. Perhaps linking the original word to Perseus' Liddel and Scott or some source explaining its problematic translation would be a good idea, or is this too much?

Yeah- words are very important in these matters, and uncanny is not the same as unheimlich just as virtue is not the same as arete. if you read heidegger without investigating the german term "unheimlich" it won't make as much sense. linking the terms to liddel and scott isn't a bad idea. --Heah (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to make some larger changes. To begin with, a more extensive section on the Socratic sources. Currently it is broken into 'Satirical Playwrights' (for Aristophanes) and 'Prose Sources' (for Plato and Xenophon), which is peculiar since Aristophanes is also a prose writer, not a poet.

Hunh? Aristophanes' dialogue is in iambic trimeter; his choruses are three-part odes. See any book on comic metres. (He is often, but not always, translated into prose, for modern performance and the translator's sanity; but that's not the same thing.) Septentrionalis 18:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I've never looked at the Greek, nor am I very well up on Greek literary traditions, so my claim was presumptious. I should have said that the fact that Aristophanes' wrote in metre rather than prose is not sufficient to make him a different sort of source. (The fact that he is writer of comedies could arguably be a reason for distiguishing him from Plato and Xenophon, but Xenophon and Plato also each wrote in different literary styles and had different aims, with their own bias.)--Dast 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comedy is a different genre than any form of prose, with different purposes; that's why it was in verse to begin with. Whatever do you mean by saying that the Memorabilia is in a different "style" from Plato? Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is that Plato wrote dramatic dialogues, which never purported, explicitly, to be historical representations, but Xenophon's Memorabilia is not a dramatic dialogue - it is a record, told in the first person, of his experiences of Socrates, which includes his reports of conversations he claims Socrates had (This is not true of Xenophon's other Socratic works). On your first point, I agree: Greek comedy is a different genre from, say, biographies, novels, academic works, Platonic dialogues or any prose genre, just as it is a different genre from Greek tragedy. My point was simply as follows: the division into poetry and prose is not the most useful way to organise the Socratic sources. In place of poetry and prose, I would suggest a division into earlier and later sources. Dast.

I think it would be a good idea to join these sections and devote a paragraph to each source (and mention the fragmentory (e.g. Aeschines) and later (e.g. Aristotle) sources). This, while interesting in itself, would also clear up confusion about the relation between the historical Socrates and, e.g., the Platonic 'Socrates'.

Whose set of conjectures are you planning to call the "historical" Socrates? Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ooh, i missed that paragraph. i second pmanderson's remark. we cannot clear up the confusion and should not try to do so, but rather present the information that we do have. differences between xenophon and plato and aristophanes should certainly be noted and examined, but we have no way of getting past the sources to the "historical" socrates. --Heah (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. I mean distiguishing the historical Socrates, who many would say cannot be found (although I would disagree), from textual representations of him. So far, a reader might wonder what the article means by 'Socrates believes ...' etc, and distinguishing the historical and literary Socrates will clarify this (i.e. that it means, for example, 'Plato, in the early dialogues, has Socrates say ...')--Dast 18:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

excellent- i threw in a disclaimer to that effect a few months back but stopped short of going through the whole thing for wording of such. sounds good.--Heah (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to step on anybody's toes, so any feedback or advice would be very welcome. --Dast 14:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah, references would be good. much of the philosophy section is from me and not cited, but i can fix that; most of what is cited is all secondary sources, and imho it seems that the primary sources should be, well, primary. first i have to write my thesis, though. your other ideas sound good too, so i'd say go for it. --Heah (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

reference?

"According to Dr. Will Beldam, he was the first person to question everything and everyone, and apparently it offended the leaders of his time."

What is this attribution trying to accomplish? Who is Will Beldam, why is he an authority on Socrates, and if this is a reference, to what work of his is it referring to? I am still learning wiki so sorry about the poor formatting

Obscurity

Against this, his own self-professed lack of knowledge and the clear line between the ideal world and the everyday world are presented; when arguing that Socrates did believe one could become wise.

I removed this sentence from the section on Knowledge. I'm not sure what it is trying to say It did not communicate to me, and I doubt it will to other readers. Septentrionalis 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

the original sentence went:

It is debated whether or not Socrates believed that one could even become wise. Against this, his own self-professed lack of knowledge and the clear line between the ideal world and the everyday world are presented; when arguing that Socrates did believe one could become wise, the Symposium and other texts detailing the philosophic path are pointed out.

but the last part was deleted on aug. 30 by an ip. the preceding paragraph on midwifery, giving some more context for that line, was also deleted that day. i'm going to restore both. --Heah (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of the intro section on Socrates' life was deleted by the same ip, and i've restored that as well. --Heah (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rephrasing; still obscure. Septentrionalis 16:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, looks great. --Heah (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Socrates--suicide?

The article Suicide displays a picture of the death of Socrates. Is it accurate to call Socrates' death a suicide? (Anyone wishing to move this debate to that page is welcome to do so.) Thanks! --Dpr 00:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That was Nietzsche's interpretation: Socrates offered a cock to Aesculapius in gratitude for being cured of the disease called life. On a narrower view, he did administer a lethal substance to himself. Septentrionalis 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is accurate. He was obliged to drink the hemlock by law, but it was by his own hand. This is still pretty borderline, but from Plato's Crito, Phaedo and Xenophon's Memorabilia (I can search for the references if anyone's interested) it seems that Socrates could have escaped very easily, and lived in exile, but decided to stay and submit to his sentence. Also from Plato's Apology it seems that Socrates could have got off fairly lightly, but instead irritated the judges - seemingly in full awarness of the consequneces - by suggesting his sentence should be, because he benefited the city so much, publically-funded meals (the percentage of judges who voted for his penalty to be a death sentence was actually higher than the percentage who voted he was guilty, the former vote after and the latter before his comments about his penalty). This evidence makes it a little less controversially suicide.--Dast 23:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's inaccurate. Though he did irritated the judges, drinking the poison was his sentence. Check also Aristotle near the phrase he would not give the Athenians a chance to sin a third time against philosophy. +MATIA ☎ 23:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That example illustrates how easy it would have been for Socrates to escape.Septentrionalis 23:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Xenophon (if I remember correctly) analyses in depth that it was easy to escape. But I don't think that the majority view is that Socrates suicided. +MATIA ☎ 09:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Because he could have escaped does not make it a suicide. According to the sources we have, Socrates drank the poison because that was his sentence and he thought it was just to abide by the law of his city. TheTruth12 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Suppose a teacher sends a student to the office. His friend tells him he could easily escape going to the office by dropping out and attending another school. The student says that even though he was unjustly sent to the office, he chose this school and therefore following the teacher's command to go to the office is the right thing to do. Would you say this student sent himself to the office or went there fully on his own accord? Of course not. TheTruth12 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair example. I suppose, then, the only evidence that would allow us to interpret his death as suicide is Xenophon's, but Plato's explanation is perhaps more trustworthy. Dast

xD

Someone has subversively slipped the word Fountainhead into the article :D

i love fountainhead... good for "somebody" XD 71.98.100.93 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Impiety - a doubtful addition

The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War was interpreted as Athena judging the city of for not being pious.

Evidence for this? Septentrionalis 23:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just read it somewhere. If it sounds doubtful, then remove it. My understanding is that each city has its own protector god/goddess, and when cities go to war with each other and one loses, it is interpreted of the gods battling in the heavens. The basic mindset is that Athena is surely more powerful than the opposing god, therefore Athens losing must have been caused by Athena's unwillingness to support the city because of impiety towards her. I may have picked this up in W.T. Jones's History of Western Philosophy series (published by Wadsworth Publishing), in its first volume "The Classical Mind". This may be an outdated or unpopular interpretation though, so we can remove the text I wrote for now until we're really sure. FranksValli 04:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be true elsehere, and would clearly be true of Athens a century before, in Pisistratus' time; but it requires attestation for the audience of Anaxagoras and Aristophanes. Andocides, perhaps? Septentrionalis 05:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Headline text

Socrates was black Socrates black ancestry should be mentioned

Evidence? FranksValli 18:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/religion/myths/pictures/theseus.jpg 4 black athenians surrouded by two whites http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015475?tocId=9015475&query=red-figure

That is: four males being watched by two females, as is the universal convention for Attic pottery. Septentrionalis 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

a laundry list

This must be rewritten. We could probably quote Plato that Socrates didn't write anything, and the stuff by Meno would not be part of Socrates' works. +MATIA ☎ 11:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Meno (Μένων) is a platonic dialogue. The text in question at gutenberg project is "(Socrates was known for his simple attire, and for wearing his garments over and over till they wore out. However, the only surviving example of his writing is a laundry list, so we know he kept his clothes clean and somewhat presentable, though simple)", and that's probably a comment of the english translator. An analysis of laundry lists and their position in a biography. +MATIA ☎ 11:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed that phrase for now. +MATIA ☎ 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

taking a stand

how did socrates take a stand? Yahussain 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

well i suppose one way could be that he stood up for his own beliefs/values and chose death by poison rather than fleeing athens. 424242 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

Not quotes, which are punctuation marks.

The man who knows he knows nothing is smarter than the man who thinks he knows something but actually knows nothing. This appears to be a paraphrase of a lengthy argument in Plato's Apology of Socrates 22c-23c. Anyone wishing to restore it should provide the exact words and a verifiable reference. Larvatus 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

I think there are several places where quotations would improve the article. I have Plato's pieces on Socrates so I will see what I can do. TheTruth12 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of manuscript?

Socrates

Why was the Arabic manuscript of Socrates erased from the article? If it were not for the Arabs, we would hardly know anything about the Greeks today now would we?--Zereshk 01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this is an interesting representation of Socrates, which shows the breath of his infulence. And again, yes, we tend to focus on the european scholastic tradition when thinking about Plato's commentators, but the Arabic tradition predates this and was responsible for maintaining it. Perhaps it would be more fitting if it was alongside a few lines about his role in the Arabic tradition? Dast 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, does anyone know what it says? Dast 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the accompanying text has to do with Socrates, though it is indeed Socrates who is depicted. The text seems to be from the Mukhtar al-Hikam. In an article titled "Picturing Socrates" by Kenneth Lapatin (in A Companion to Socrates, ed. by Ahbel-Rappe & Kamtekar, 2006), it has this to say about the image: "Socrates and unnamed students appear in an early fourteenth-century Seljuk miniature of the Mukhtar al-Hikam ('The choicest maxims and best sayings') written by the Fatimid prince al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik in the eleventh century, now in Istanbul...." (Lapatin's note that accompanies the image, however, describes the miniature as "early thirteenth century".) Isokrates 23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BC Christian My Ass

Google search for "BC Christian" turns up 17,400 results; search for "BC Christian" Socrates turns up only 108, the vast majority of which are incidental. The ones that aren't incidental are either this article or text copied directly from the article. I move that this be deleted. Argyrios 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"A Historical" vs "An Historical"

PMAnderson: I believe you have failed to understand the context of my recent revert. I was not changing it for the hell of it; I was changing BACK a very recent previous edit by an unsigned user. I understand you are sensitive to this issue from your user page and that my justification for my revert wasn't correct in your opinion, but surely to apply your rule fairly, the original edit was the one that was in error, not my revert. Argyrios 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The source for "Finding that they knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew that he knew nothing'"' is here: [1] but where is the source for "virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."?

(Solomon 44 is a secondary source) Andreas 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

self reference

Meant to link to WP:NSR in edit summary Argyrios 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article lacks references. The discussions above further demonstrate that the lack of sources has been an ongoing problem for this article. --Allen3 ^talk 15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Platonism sidebar

The platonism sidebar presents Plato's image (as depicted in the School of Athens), yet Socrates' image in that painting is nowhere to be found.

I only bring this up because I was momentarily confused, seeing Plato's image and thinking it was supposed to be Socrates. --Eienmaru 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For an interesting article on where (and even whether) Socrates appears in Raphael's School of Athens see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0422/is_n4_v77/ai_17846051

Why i removed certain parts.

Before continuing this reverting back and forth I think I should say which is the reason I removed certain parts. Theese parts are simply wrong and misguiding.They regenerate the popular opinions about philosophers and exhibit great disrespect and lack of understanding for the personality and the great genius of Socrates. Only 1 out of 1 billion people in earth can really understand what Hellenes philosophers meant. So it is natural for lesser minds like yours not to undestand his books. Even if you are above the average intelligence you are still barbarians and thus you are incapable of understanding what the words that philosophers used mean. English language lacks the depth and the necessary plurality of relations that will allow for a correct translation from the hellenic language.English language is primitive ,simplistic and leads to wrong results. To make things worse many of the mistakes that philosophers analyze are inherent inside the structure of the english language.

Before launching a flame war against me you should know that this is not my opinion.If Plato lived he would believe the same about all of you.Which means that you are uncivilized , barbarians and not-free people...that you are slaves. Thus you are incapable of understanding philosophy.

I am not willing to argue shout or swear against anyone .I am just saying the truth.The person that you describe as Socrates is not the one that lived 2400 years ago.He is someone else.A creature of your fantasy but certainly not anywhere near the personality of the true person that you are attempting to describe.If you want to do something good just provide historical information and leave the attempts to analyze philosophy to those capable of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ParmenidesII (talk • contribs) .

Try to be less insulting, please, and provide sources for your extraordinary claims or back off of them. Argyrios 14:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this guy also "edited" the Plato article, removing much content.. I believe he's edited as 212.205.215.168 (talk · contribs).

FiP ^{Как вы думаете?} 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

Theres not much on his early life

That's because we don't know anything. Septentrionalis 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

removed "popular culture"

Socrates was the father of Western philosophy, but clearly it merits space that some guy made a non-outstanding film 2,500 years later and had one of the rats named after him, or, my favorite, that when someone does something dumb, it's humorously ironic to call him by the name of a great thinker.

Seriously, that section really detracts. Serious articles about extremely important historical characters don't have that sort of section. Compare to Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Buddha, George Washington, Napoleon, etc. Argyrios 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Give them time. Eventually, the Napoleon article will have references to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (which, incidentally, also features Socrates) and Napoleon Dynamite. The Battle of Wake Island article has references to the video game -- not my idea. Most of these pop culture things meet notability criteria, so the best you can do is edit them for grammar and style. --Jpbrenna 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A generation of film-goers knows him as Soh Crates - isn't this notable?--Shtove 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Socrates' Divine Sign

I corrected some errors in the info under Mysticism about Socrates' divine sign. The earlier version called it a "daemon", which Socrates never does (neither in Plato nor in Xenophon); in the literature it is always referred to as a "daemonic thing", divine in origin, but not itself a divinity or even a being. Also, the earlier version of the article said that the sign appeared to him "always" when he was about to make a mistake; but although both Plato and Xenophon report that its appearance was frequent, neither suggest that it came to Socrates whenever he was about to make a mistake. By the way, in the time of Plato, the ancient Greek term "daemonic" (or daimonion) simply means "divine" or "supernatural". Isokrates 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

redirect

Socratic is a band and i typed it in but it referred me to "Socraties".

Is there a problem here? (I believe so)

Diogenes Laertius

Should Diogenes Laertius be mentioned as an ancient source on Socrates, or does he provide nothing of independent value? john k 20:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

He's certainly a source worth mentioning; he may have had access to many earlier sources that are now lost. On the other hand, very little of what he says can be taken as fact - he prefered a good story to accurate biography. Dast 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Socrates a sophist?

There seems to be a contradiction between Socrates opposing sophistry and him actually being one. See "sophistry."

I would suppose that is because the actual picture on what Socrates relation was wrt to sophists is very unclear. He is seen criticising sophists in several of Platos dialogues. This is however not conclusive, as it is generally assumed that Plato was not an entirely reliable witness at all times. Though it is assumed that some of his dialogues were accurate accounts of real speech by Socrates himself, it is generally accepted that espescially in the later dialogues Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own opinions. Further muddying the question is Aristophanes satire The Clouds, where Socrates is depicted as a caricature of the sophists. Whether Aristophanes merely chose Socrates for this role because of his iconic nature, or whether there is some real basis in reality for this designation is a genuinely open question, though the balance of opinion is that Aristophanes is not to be taken too seriously. Socrates himself saw the satire, btw, and is known to have enjoyed it. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

i can try to explain this one, as i learned it (i am student of philosophy). there are several reasons why Aristophanes believed that Socrates was sophist. first of all sophists, like Socrates, opposed cosmology and preferred philosophy that is more practical and more about human, then sophists like Socrates used to talk with people about everything and everywhere. but this does not mean that Socrates was sophist. first of all note that Aristophanes had no idea about philosophy (just like Xenophon) so using him as your source on Socrates is not very smart (Gregory Vlastos wrote allot about this). that is why he could not see the difference. first of all sophists are more practical but in their theory about truth, while Socrates is more practical in his ethics, then they both used dialog as "tool" for their philosophy, but Socrates used method called elenhos while sophists used eristic method. goal of elenhos is truth, and eristic has no goal. this is one out of many differences, for example Socrates never used to teach for money, he never traveled etc. so Socrates was not sophist, and Aristophanes was wrong about him. when Socrates saw the play he simply stood in front of audience and said nothing. it is like he was saying look at me, do i look like Socrates in that play. and btw first play was very bad so Aristophanes had to write second version, and this second version is preserved till today but not the first. sorry for my bad English i hope i helped :)

--L 0 0 P 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

I've just read the controversial lecture by the pope [2]. He briefly draws a comparison between Socrates' rejection of myth and the hellenisation of the early church. Very interesting, but is this a commonplace notion, or is his Holiness guilty of original research?--Shtove 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Socrates' liberation of Phaedo

Might including a brief reference about the liberation of Phaedo by Socrates (if accurate) and the significance of his presence at Socrates' death give insight into the character of Socrates? This is beyond my area of expertise to write. This aspect came to my attention after reading the following from the article "Socrates or Muhammad?" by Lee Harris:

"On his last day on earth, Socrates spent the hours before he drank the fatal hemlock talking to his friends about the immortality of the human soul. Next to Socrates was a Greek boy, whose name was Phaedo--Ratzinger mentions him in his address. Socrates had come across Phaedo one day in the marketplace of Athens, where he was up for sale as a slave. Distraught at knowing what lay ahead for the handsome and intelligent boy, Socrates ran to all his wealthy friends and collected enough money to buy the boy, then immediately gave him his freedom. Socrates' liberation of Phaedo was a symbol of Socrates' earthly mission." BobK 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm, i'd never heard this before . . . --heah 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The oldest extant version of the story is in Diogenes Laertius 2.105. As with many of Diogenes' anecdotes, we now have no way of telling whether it is true. Isokrates 14:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock rats

I always thought this guy's name was pronounced 'soc ruh teez" until high school when my sophomore humanities teacher and his whole class corrected me and said that it was actually "sock rats." I remember people standing up in front of the whole class giving speeches about "sock rats," and I had to say it too! Argh! Not sure what this has to do with Wikipedia, hehe. - Connelly 03:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The first pronounciation you used is the correct one. Other than that, please stop filling wikipedia with questions/comments of no value. Thank you, Matthew 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Socrates

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

trial and death

I'd like to suggest that the section concerning his trial and death mention the fact that a decent number of his close associates (alcibiades, Charmides, etc.) betrayed athens in the war - and, if Plato's work is any indication, he may have held undemocratic views. Karl Popper, for one, believed that this was the true reason why he was put to death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.51.40 (talk • contribs) .

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Socrates/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs references plange 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)