Talk:Socrates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Avoid Islamicist Nonsense

I have edited out the following passage:

An Ahmadiyyah Scholar, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, (the Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyyat Movement in Islam) argues that Socrates experienced what can be called a prophetic revelation. He writes in his book, Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, that "Socrates seems to have a very personalized and intense relationship with the Supreme Being. His very personality is built on the pattern of the messengers of God."

For future reference, please bear in mind that this is an article about Socrates, not a vehicle for propaganda of XYZ talking about Socrates. In reference to Socrates seeming to have a very personalized and intense relationship with the Supreme Being, future contributors would be well advised to look up ἀποτρεπτικός. As a consistent dissuader, preventer, and averter, Socrates' δαιμόνιον is not a fit candidate for the aforementioned office.

Larvatus 01:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus

resources on socrates

you only mention Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes as resources on Socrates, but Aristotle also wrote about him. Aristotle never wrote book about him but he mentions Socrates a lot in his works. i think Aristotle should be mentioned as resource because in his works you can find some info on Socrates that is not written anywhere else. --L 0 0 P 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but since he's a little later, and didn't know Socrates, he's not as valuable a source. But he should be mentioned, perhaps in a 'later sources' section. Dast 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Excessive?

I've noticed that this article often mentions Socrates attraction to young men. I know this is partially true but I have a concern with the line:

'"Socrates says he slipped out of the battle of Potidaea in order to return to Athens to check out the handsome young men"'

And its source. Anyone agree? Zhang Guo Lao 08:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the phrase 'slipped out of battle' is especially excessive since it implies desertion, which was a serious crime. The (mis)source is probably the beginning of the Charmides: Socrates has come back after the battle of Potidaea has finished and inquires 'about the present state of philosophy and about the young men, whether there were any who had become distinguished for wisdom or beauty or both' (153d). Beauty was highly valued in Athens, so Socrates interest is of very little note, and wouldn't bring to mind anything sexual if he did not soon after become inflamed by the young Charmides' beauty (and promptly control himself, illustrating the dialogue's theme of temperance). So, the sentence is extremely misleading; I'll take it out. Dast 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It gets worse. The whole section reads: 'In the Symposium Alcibiades says that Socrates retreated from Delium with the General Laches, and in the Charmides, Socrates says he slipped out of the battle of Potidaea in order to return to Athens to check out the handsome young men.[1] Victor Davis Hanson, a professor of classics, describes Socrates' fighting at Delium, as a disastrous loss for the Athenians in 424 B.C.' What!? I can find no explanation for this; Socrates is always portrayed as exceptionally brave in battle and I know of no source that questions this. In the Laches, for example, Laches actually says that 'he marched with me in the retreat from Delium, and I can tell you that if the rest had been willing to behave like him, our city would be safe and we would not have suffered a disaster of that kind.' (181b) (ushering in the dialogues' theme: courage). And in the Symposium Alcibiades extolls Socrates' valour in battle (both at Potidaea (219e ff.) and Delium (221a ff.)) and how he saved his life. For Victor Hanson's sake, I hope he has been misinterpreted. I'm taking the whole section out, since it is simply mistaken. Dast 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a plainclothes professional to figure out this is vandalism.Matthew 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 911

I'm getting all sorts of backlash for my contributions for this article, most of which are intended to bring it up to snuff. Ridiculous claims that Socrates made a conscious attempt to emulate the occupation of his mother, which he did not. It is outright silly to suggest- although he may have saw in the occupation of the midwife (that is someone who helps bring forth something, someone who aids in the process of birth) something akin to his dialectic approach, by no means did Socrates make a conscious choice "to follow in his mother's footsteps" the very suggestion of which is fallacious, considering Athens' aggressive patriarchy.

And how can you say with any degree of professionalism that Socrates advocates the military communism as set forth in The Republic? By that time, Plato was using Socrates as a mere mouthpiece of his own ideas and philosophy. One might as well claim that Socrates was a sophist and biologist who studies the reasons why flies fart because Aristophanes portrays him as such. Any person with a sense of history would acknowledge that this whole section ought to be deleted, with some rational, well-cited paragraphs on the possibilities of Socrates' own philosophical ideas.

I also think it is hardly judicious to delete the edits of mine which refine some of the historical claims. In summary, the article ought to be revised back to the point of my edits, and things should be built upon (historically, professionally, and most important, reasonably) from there. Matthew 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the backlash? I don't find it here or on your user page. It appears that your edits have remained in the article. Nposs 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A number of my revisions have been swept away (look at the most recent version as compared with my last edit), for reasons I'm not certain of. But if you compare the two versions, you can certainly see it. If I did, I didn't mean that there was any sort of personal attack. I simply wish to create a more robust article, and it appears as if its not being effective. Matthew 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of vandalism since your last round of editing. Is it possible your edits were inadvertantly removed while editors (such as myself) were reverting these edits? If so, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to simply put your edits back in. Nposs

Ah, alright, I'll put them back in, tomorrow morning. At the moment, I have to watch The Colbert Report (its not really that amusing, but it has its moments). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Across.The.Synapse (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

You need to learn how to watch Colbert and edit at the same time. That way you can get started on his recommended edits before everyone else (like "Black Future Month"). Nposs 04:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I getting this right - Colbert has a regular WP edit recommendation (like the elephants thing)? And why is this section called Wikipedia 911?--Shtove 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he makes wikipedia jokes on a irregular basis, mostly because subverting wikipedia can be funny (for more on this, see Uncyclopedia.

As far as my title goes, I guess in hindsight it really wasn't that urgent, but I was getting flustered with the person (Brenda, I think) who took out all my contributions to write historically invalid things. I even submitted a notice to the wikipedia advocacy group, even though the whole thing has resolved itself quite smoothly. Matthew 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Matthew/Across the Synapse, your edits were reverted by User:Brenda maverick. Here's the diff: [1]. I'm reverting back to your version, because I believe it more accurately reflects scholarship on Plato and Socrates. However, the article really needs to be based even more closely on secondary scholarship, and it needs to cite that scholarship through inline references. (See Pericles and Alcibiades for examples of articles that do this.)

By the way, it's very confusing if your signature is different from your username. For awhile I wasn't connecting "Matthew" and "Across.The.Synapse" at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-reverting. As I said, I plan to update this article specifically, as soon as I finish the two books which are on my hitlist: Socrates by WKC Guthrie (currently reading) and Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher (next on my book list). I'll consider changing my signature, but I just like the idea of referring to my name as I contribute. Matthew 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Atheism...?

I think its amusing (don't you?) that this page is incorporated in the Atheism project, considering what we know about Socrates' faith in the Delphic Oracle, not to mention the Assembly's spurious accusations of offense against the state religion. That is all. Matthew 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty non-mainstream to say Socrates was an atheist. Anyone who's read Socrates's description in Copleston's History of Philosophy would reconsider. This is not to say Copleston has his biases, however! FranksValli 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

and not to mention his devotion to his inner daemon --Leopabe 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

He writes in his book, Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, that "Socrates seems to have a very personalized and intense relationship with the Supreme Being. His very personality is built on the pattern of the messengers of God." -ummmwhat?

Socrates was nevertheless an important influence on later philosophers who moved towards atheism. He was the first well known skeptic, which certainly qualifies him to be a part of the Atheism project.

actually several christian philosophers tried to merge both the philosophy of socrates with the teachings of christ, to say that he was the first well known "skeptic" is a huge generalization, as other philosophers such as xenophanes had existed before socrates.

I don't see what's so strange about it. He was not an atheist, but he was persecuted due in part to a claim that he was. Atheism as a capital crime is certainly relevent to the atheism project, even if the accusation was untrue. And, to expand on one of the anonymous posters above, his Socratic method of critically examining claims was certainly part of the basis on which the scientific method was formed. He may not have been the first skeptic, but he was certainly influential. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Socrates was not charged with Atheism. The charge was that he did "not believe in the gods of the state, and ha[d] other new divinities of his own." Fixer1234 (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dying words & debt

Shortly before dying, Socrates spoke his last words to Crito saying, "Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt." The significance of Socrates' last words is not exactly known.

I seem to recall reading a book suggesting this was evidence that Socrates was in poor health at the time (Asclepius being the god of healing) and welcomed death as release from the pain of some unspecified illness. Unfortunately, I don't remember the source. — Xaonon (Talk) 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Xenophon, who doesn't mention Socrates' last words, talks of Socrates' being glad to be freed of old age (he was about 70, so it wouldn't be surprising if he had a few ailments), perhaps that is what your thinking of? As to his purported last words, interpretations abound: he was being freed from the disease of bodily life (since the Phaedo presented a picture of the immortal soul tied to a body full of base desires); he was helping Plato, who was said to absent because of illness; or since he says 'we' owe a cock to Asclepius, perhaps the whole company have been cured of something, such as ignorance. Its very hard to decide, but interesting to speculate about. Ultimately, though, I don't think the article should represent any particular interpretation. Dast 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dast, The phrase from Phaedo is most often interpreted to be consistent with Socrates's statement that death may one of humanity's greatest blessings.(Lucas(CA) 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Accuracy in regards to the trial

There are numerous inconsistencies between the account of the trial of Socrates in this article and the main article on that topic. This article downplays his opposition to democracy and fails to mention the actions of some of his disciples in the dictatorship of the thirty. These are all discussed as major causes in the main article on Socrates' trial. This article says rather that he was condemned for being a social and moral critic. This, however, is, from what I have read, not the case. If Athens condemned social critics it would not have been the refuge for philosophers it was. Finally some of the language such as, "In any case Socrates was a man who, willingly or not, pays for the sins of his society with his own blood," seems biased. Regardless of whether or not this is true this is not an editorial page and the way this is said hardly meets a neutral point of view. CuttingEdge 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your right, the account of the trial here is pretty poor. However, Trial of Socrates is probably not the best place for inspiration: that his accusers were concerned with Socrates' supposedly anti-democratic stance and his association with some dubious characters is a theory. It's a pretty good one, but it is not in the texts: what Socrates is charged with is introducing new gods/atheism and corrupting the young. As to Athens as a liberal environment for philosophers, with enlightenment comes counter-enlightenment and many people wanted to stop these new philosophers and sophists. A law was even passed, during Socrates' lifetime, banning 'atheism and theorising about the sky' (the latter being, basically, natural philosophy). I think it is best if the various theories about the cause of the condemnation of Socrates are left to Trial of Socrates - here should be the very basic historical account. Definitely we should get rid of "In any case Socrates was a man who, willingly or not, pays for the sins of his society with his own blood". Besides being sentimental, it seems like its trying to make an analogy with Jesus, which is a little too much. Dast 09:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well it looks like we ought to change both the account on this page and the main page on Trial of Socrates, however, i probably will not start till next weekend because i need to acquire more sources than i have on me. As for the anti-democracy issue i do not know. The only major work i have read on socrates is I.F. Stone's Trial of Socrates in which he definately supports such a view, however i definately will check that with other sources before inserting his views into the article. As for the free speech issue in athens i think you definately aren't giving the city the credit it deserves. I have not heard of the law you speak of but are u sure it wasn't made under one of the dictatorships or under the first few years of the new democracy? The freedom of athenian theater and in the assembly, as well as on the streets was one of athens most cherished ideals. Of course Socrates trial was a blemish on that, but that only emphasizes how subversive they must found him and how shaken they were by the overthrow of democracy. CuttingEdge 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    I suggest getting some copies of Plato's work on Socrates.  That would be his closest disciple and is believed to be the some of the best evidence we have of Socrate's

I'd say the claims in Trial of Socrates are fine, so long as they are represented as theories. As I said, they are good theories. As to Socrates being anti-democratic, see the Crito: he seems certainly prepared to at least put up with democracy here. But, certainly, there is a debate about his position on democracy and again it is fine, I think, if this is represented in the article as a theory (with the other side being represented as well). I'll try find a reference for that law; I think its mentioned in Walter Burkert's Greek Religion and I'd also imagine Dodd's deals with it in one of the last chapters of Greeks and the Irrational. But I'll find a more exact reference. But Athen's was, when compared to its neighbours, a pretty liberal place - but I think we should be cautious about seeing Athen's as liberal in the modern sense. Dast 10:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Burkert is CH. VII sec. 2 (p. 316): "But about 438 (?) one Diopeithes, a seer, was able to carry through a novel decree of far-reaching consequences: one should 'denounce those who do not believe in divine beings or teach doctrines about the sky'" He mentions how it was directed against Anaxagoras. Dast 10:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should present both sides to the issue of whether socrates was for or against democracy and to what degree he was so, but we should not do it by using the platonic diologues or other primary sources. Rather we should use modern scholarship that has already taken into account the biases of these sources. Therefore the Crito is insufficient to support that side without modern scholarship. This, i believe, is, to a lesser extent, a problem throughout this article, as much of it reflects plato's portrayal of socrates which is definitely partisan. CuttingEdge 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But, for the most part, modern scholarship on Socrates' trial is just people interpreting Plato's dialogues. Other than this there is Xenophon and some very very scanty mentions of his trial elsewhere. Anyway, as a general principle, I think we should always rely on the primary sources first. As to Plato's partisan account: he is generally - no, almost completely - taken to be the more accurate testimony of Socrates' life. Certainly we should consider Xenophon and incorporate his account, but his work on Socrates' is tiny compared to Plato's so it doesn't add a great deal, certainly not with regard to details of his life. Dast 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Dast is right in saying that modern scholarship on the trial is based in large part on Plato's dialogues, but the article still needs to be based on secondary scholarship. If editors simply present their own interpretation of Plato, that's original research, which is a no-no. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the Crito is insufficient to cite as support for any position on socrates. CuttingEdge 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken: on issues in Plato's work that are controversial, and only on such issues, we should default to secondary research. A fair point. But with respect to Socrates' trial, some facts, which can be found in Plato, are far from controversial (that Socrates had a trial, was accused of corrupting the young and introducing new gods, etc.) but most of the issues that arise in the secondary literature are controversial - naturally since the research that has been done on it is essentially asking questions that can only have speculative answers, such as whether Socrates association with Alcibiades, Critias, and such people was related to his condemnation. My point is only that in this article we stick to the simple facts first and only cautiously mention the speculative issues that arise in the secondary literature. Dast 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia?

In an episode of House, M.D. (the "Socratic Method" one), the title character mentions several times that Socrates suffered from schizophrenia. I've never heard anything else about that, but maybe it should have a mention in the article (or a permanent one on the talk page)? I can't imagine I'm the only one who wondered if the great Dr. House was correct. -Elizabennet | talk 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even trust psychiatrist's diagnosis of patients right in front of them! The only possible evidence would be Socrates' divine sign - 'sign' note, not 'voice' - that sometimes prevented him from taking a course of action (it was always negative, never positive). But this is not enough to even honourably speculate about whether Socrates was schizophrenic. Dr. House has let us down, I'm afraid. Dast 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

the series on: The Dialogues of Plato

Should there not be a link from here to "the series on: The Dialogues of Plato" ? I can only find a link to "Socratic dialogue", which does not, for example list "Phaedrus". Before I link to it, I want to make sure that I am not making a mistake. DanielDemaret 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a statement from the Life section of the article...

"It is unclear how Socrates earned a living... Plato pictures Socrates loitering around schoolyards looking for children to befriend."

The bolded phrase strikes me at worst as vandalism, and at best as needlessly provocative in its syntax. Second opinions on its removal would be appreciated. -- Éiginnte 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed that, when I reverted a prior obvious vandalism, but did not read the article at length. I believe, as you, it seems to be vandalism, a test or, IMO, not a good faith edit. Sometimes edits appear valid when just skimmed over after seeing the history change, when no edit summary was provided. Some make many edits in a row, making it difficult to find, what I call, sneaky edits, in between the obvious ones. Good catch. I second the removal. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (ps)I removed the HTML for underline, since it seems not to work, instead I used italics, as I do not know the code to underline here)

Thanks. Total agreement with your commentary insofar as "sneaky edits", and a thumbs-up to you for all your efforts. -- Éiginnte 01:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (For underlining, a use of the "< u> < /u>" tag seems to work in this talk pane, so perhaps it might apply elsewhere as well? Or is that the non-functional HTML code to which you referred...?)

If you view the history of this page, you'll see what I mean. I was mistaken though, in that it wasnt the code for underline, but italics. LOL. Must've been in the twilight zone. Thanks for the underline lesson! - Jeeny ^Talk 20:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Socrates crafted statues of the Graces?

The present version of the article makes this claim: "There is evidence that he crafted statues of the Three Graces that stood near the Acropolis until the second century CE." First of all this needs a citation. More importantly, once the source for it is found, I believe it will be found that the evidence is weak. (Here is one instance where history - or rather historians - abhor a vacuum: there is no good evidence for how Socrates made a living, so many historians seem all too satisfied with flimsy or downright bad evidence for how he did so.)Isokrates 01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of a sculptor named Socrates who was assumed, most likely falsely, to be the philosopher by some later sources. Certainly it is not usually mentioned in authoritative biographies. What I'll do for now - until some solid evidence for or against is found - is change the sentence to reflect more doubt. Dast 10:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Socrates was a sculptor is found in a bunch of sources. The bit about the statues of the 3 Graces is in Pausanias, where he talks about the Acropolis. I have no idea if modern scholars believe this or not. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Can you get the exact reference? If so, then we can add it to the article. Dast 18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Pausanias 1.22.8. Apparently there's also something in Diogenes Laertius but I can't find an exact citation. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just found them and the Diogenes Laertes reference. Still most likely false, of course. I'll add them shortly:

• Pausanias I, 22, 8 "Right at the very entrance to the Acropolis are a Hermes (called Hermes of the Gateway) and figures of Graces, which tradition says were sculptured by Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, who the Pythia testified was the wisest of men, a title she refused to Anacharsis, although he desired it and came to Delphi to win it."
• Diogenes is II, 19: "And some say that the Graces in the Acropolis are his work" 'Some' could well be Pausanias. Dast 18:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

John Burnet has the following to say in his Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito (1924, p. 51):

• There was, Pausanias tells us (i.22), a group of the Charites [Graces] on the Acropolis which some people said was the work of Socrates, but Sir James Frazer gives reasons for holding that it was of earlier date. The name Socrates was quite common. There are forty-four people of that name in [Johannes Kirchner's] Pros[opographia] Att[ica].

Burnet must be referring to the following passage in Frazer's Pausanias's Description of Greece (1898):

• These figures of the Graces, said to be by Socrates, are mentioned by Pausanias in another passage (ix.35.7), from which we learn that the figures were draped, and that they stood "before the entrance to the Acropolis." … Diogenes Laertius mentions, on the authority of Duris, that the philosopher Socrates had been a sculptor, and he adds that the draped figures of the Graces on the Acropolis were said by some people to have been made by Socrates (Diogenes Laertius, ii.5.19; cp. Suidas, s.v. [Socrates]). Pliny (N.H. xxxvi.32) mentions the Graces in the Propylaea at Athens which were made by Socrates, "not the same Socrates as the painter, though others think they were the same person." The scholiast on Aristophanes (Clouds, 773) attributes these figures to Socrates the philosopher, and says that they were "carved in relief on the wall behind Athena." ... But was the original relief really, as tradition reported it, a youthful work of the philosopher Socrates? The style of the relief is not absolutely conclusive against this view, though it is more archaic than we should expect in a work of the middle of the fifth century B.C. But in 1889 there was discovered on the Acropolis, not far from the Propylaea and the Victory terrace, a sixth relief…representing the Graces, which seems to prove that the original must have been considerably earlier than the time of Socrates. … The style of the [latest] relief is so thoroughly archaic that it can hardly be dated later than the beginning of the fifth century B.C.; more probably, perhaps, it is a work of the sixth century B.C. … [The] original, if I am right in the date I have assigned to the more archaic of the two reliefs, was probably a work of the sixth century B.C., and cannot therefore have been made by Socrates the philosopher.

Sorry for the long quotations, but if anyone has more modern scholarly opinion, please let us know. We should also keep in mind that Pausanias' report is considerably long after Socrates' death, and even he is only reporting what "people say" (legousin). All in all, it's too anecdotal to be counted reliable evidence.Isokrates 01:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kleine Pauly has, as their seventh Socrates, a Socrates of Thebes, a sculptor, attested in Pausanias 9.25.3, who made the Graces, "often mistakenly held in antiquity" for a work of the philosopher. That's 1975. But we should mention that Pausanias said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Prose sources"

"However Plato's latter works appear to be more his own philosophy put into the mouth of his mentor"

by whom? as lng as it remains unsources i, as a reader, have no clue as to the validity of that claim and can only asume original research· Lygophile has spoken 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the usual practise is to add a . The claim is as near unanimously held as just about anything in Platonic scholarship, but yes a source, why not? Dast 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of what other philosophers thought of Socrates? Cicero is a big fan. As is Schopenhauer. Maybe this deserves a new Wiki page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jobcat223 (talk • contribs) 04:31:13, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

It might be because pretty much every philosopher, and many non-philosophers, are fans, opponents, or some mixture of the two. That said, there are a few views of Socrates that stand out because they play a significant role in other thinkers' philosophies: Nietzsche's, Kierkegaard's, and Hegel's account of Socrates spring to mind. I'm not sure if that justifies a section of its own - is there any precedent for such a section? Dast 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

'Food competitor'

There's a line in the main article which reads "He was a professional food eating competitor." I'm far from an expert on classical Greek philosophy, but this strikes me as completely false. If it is wrong (or can't be verified), I suggest someone more familiar with the situation regarding this article should edit it.Jay.Rehm 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted. Next time, feel free to be WP:BOLD and edit the article. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA etc.

I removed the following text;

", invariably anglicized as [ˈsɔkɹətiːz], Sǒcratēs, SOCK-ruh-teez; c."

because it rendered the opening sentence barely readable IMO. Also, I felt the article too quickly dived into the discussion of the accuracy of existing sources re:Socrates, so have attempted a neutral (hopefully) clear introduction. Comments are most welcome. Privatemusings 06:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some flow and balance changes - and a note about the birth year

Per the entreatment within the source code - I'm leaving a note here to formally say that I've added a circa to the birth date, a long established and surely appropriate solution which I'm happy to discuss further.

I liked the use of 'elenchus' which will hopefully inform interested readers, but felt that the colloquial term was significantly lacking - so referred to both. I also added a short sentence regarding S' general acceptance as a significant figure in Western philosophy, and a few other things that a simple comparison through the history tab will highlight.

This article really should be 'featured' - we're a little ways of bothering with a review yet, but it's a great bar to aim for..... Privatemusings 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a ref for the birth year too. Could I ask editors to please pop a note here as well as (or even better, instead of) using tags in the article - thanks. Privatemusings 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have also been working on the Socrates page recently. I look forward to working with you; I've read several books on Socrates and am now looking forward to bringing this page up to snuff. This is something of a pleasurable "research project" for me (after I complete my studies of a figure I like to express my newfound expertise in it by writing a paper or doing an experiment, et cetera). Feel free to leave a message on my talk page any time.

Postscript: what's up with your user info: are you a sock puppet? across the synapse 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Synapse. I think the simplest way to explain is to say that I caused a huge fuss by behaving in a way which may or may not be allowed - everything that happened there is really deeply regrettable - I leave further info in the history tabs throughout the project.

I had one idea concerning this article, which would be to analyse its structure first, as it has suffered a bit over the natural course of wiki editing. I plan on being around for a while, and it's nice to meet you, and work with you on this article! best, Privatemusings 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In Defense of the Legacy Section

As the author of this section and in anticipation of any concerns that other editors might have, I've prepared this as a short argument for the content and an explanation for it.

With this article obviously being both vital and popular, discussion was required to account for Socrates' influence on subsequent philosophy both immediately and in the long-term. This required not just a philosophical bent to the article which is prevalent but a more historical tone since that too is a side of Socrates and his influence.

Much of what I wrote in the "Immediate Impact" subsection is either common knowledge or immediately verifiable in any textbook or historical account. There is very little of it that would be controversial or has not been previously discussed especially that he either directly or indirectly influenced Platonism, Aristotleanism, Cynicism, and Stoicism.

Following this is a wider net being cast with some more points that might be rightfully contested which is why I only attempt to draw a simpler line between the man and individuals such as Hobbes or Voltaire who were more political (whereas Socrates was decidedly apolitical).

I hope the mentions of attempts in both Europe and the Middle East to bring him back to the public eye do not require citation since al-Kindi was known expressly for trying to reconcile Greek philosophy with Islamic belief systems. If anyone can find a record of a European philosopher or clergyman from this era who refers to Socrates, it would be great.

And finally, as a "fan" of Socrates' ideas, I still do present the Criticism section. Every man had flaws and they should be mentioned although finding citations for the best refutations of traditional accounts about Socrates' life, specifically that he did not engage in pedastry, are difficult to find however. The historical ambiguity around Socrates as well as his tutorship of both Critias and Alcibiades are well-known and should not require citation although some might want a token citation.

Please post here if you have any questions as I have purposefully kept this edit anonymous to take full advantage of the peer review and editing process on Wikipedia. It is my firm hope that this will help the article gain a higher status. -- 71.249.111.159 09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources Required

I've moved this tag here;

because it's probably more useful in a venue when we can discuss it. I've read the when to cite page, but it's really designed to give general instruction, so perhaps it would be better to raise specific instances - then we can either source or removed them one by one.

There's no rush of course - and please please don't just go through and add heaps of 'cite needed' tags, because that's really not the most helpful way forward - I'd recommend a couple of statements at a time which will help us polish and improve the article.

thanks, Privatemusings 05:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Socratic problem

I am moving the Socratic problem portion of the article back up to the first subheading. This section adresses the ambiguity of Socrates's character, and so it must have immediate address, before getting into biographical information. If a reader is not informed of this particular problem right away, they will have no sense of where information about Socrates is coming from, and what veracity it has. across the synapse (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the Socratic problem section says this: "The information coming from these sources [Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes] was written in artistic and philosophical styles that imply a level of creativity or imagination upon the part of the writer. Therefore, the primary sources for the life of Socrates come without any claims of historical veracity." That is an awful argument: surely creativity and imagination doesn't imply no claim of veracity. Also, Xenophon explicitly does claim historical veracity, and so does Aristotle. Maybe the author of the above quote had in mind some other, better point.... Isokrates (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Age of sons

For a first, second and perhaps third time reader, the argument about caring for the sons of an old man like Socrates may appear overly protective by Crito. I think this passage can be improved by estimating the age of Socrates' sons, who I believe may have been 5-15 years old at the time of their father's trial. Are there any credible sources on the age of the sons? --Eddi (Talk) 01:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The best sources are Plato's Apology 34d and Phaedo 60a and 116b. Isokrates (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See the wikiarticle on Socrates' son Menexenus. Isokrates (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Socrates and not Sokrates?

I moved the article from Socrates to Sokrates. I can't see a reason why writing it incorrectly. His name is Sokrates, and not Socrates. It's written with Κάππα. So it has to be written with k and not with c. Am I mistaken? —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back. Our policies say that we should use the most common spelling in English, and that is "Socrates". bogdan (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You maybe right, but it's a bit strange, because actually "Sokrates" is the only correct way... —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation of a name happens all the time. That's the same as you would use "Germany" on this Wikipedia, you wouldn't use the german name "Deutschland". Has a lot of advantages. Key to the city (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's transliteration, not translation. "Socrates" is the most common form of his name in English, and that's what we use in Wikipedia articles, as the naming policy states. There's also a guideline, WP:GREEK, which deals with the transliteration of Greek. Please note that I'm perfectly fine with keeping Achilles at its present location, in spite of the way my username is spelled; there is no "only correct way" to transliterate a Greek name. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image?

Hello! I have been working on this page intermittently, and I find the (pretty good) Socrates image is gone. What happened to it? I may do some substantive work on the page today, as it is raining/ "sleeting" (always thought that word was a lazy formulation) outside, and so I don't have a great much on my plate. across the synapse (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)