Talk:Socrates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead reword.... more to come...

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

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

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

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

Socratic Irony

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

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

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

done some work on the first 5 para.s

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

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

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

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

• I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the way your characterizing both Socratic Irony and the Socratic Method. Since Socrates didn't write anything, I think it is inaccurate to suggest that these concepts are his “ideas”, that he created them, or was a proponent of them. Both SI and SM are concepts inspired by the characterization of Socrates in Plato. As later philosophers, teachers, and writers thought and wrote about (Plato's) Socrates these concepts developed. Some of the articles I've been reading suggest the concept of Socratic Irony begins as early as Aristotle. SI and SM as we think of them today, however, are the result of 2000 years+ of scholarship. They are excellent examples of Socrates' legacy , but not of "ideas" we can attribute directly to him. ____ I am working on a paragraph or two that will talk about Socrates legacy, the significance of his being the first “Non-Socratic” philosopher, and how he has influenced Western Thought. (The SM will certainly play into discussion.) I'm doing some research on JSTOR and other journal archives to find solid sources for the article, so any major edits from me won't come for a week or so. Fixer1234 (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your points, Fixer - and I should be really clear that I'm not really a huge fan of the current lead - I do feel that some mention of Socratic Method et al is probably warranted, but we must be accurate as well as accessible, of course! My aims with this article are fairly long term too - I'd like to get it to FA at some point - and to that end, I've also asked for further advice through a 'peer review' - which may throw up some useful information. Probably the best next step is for us to stay in touch as we find the time to work on it, and see where we get to! - It's nice to meet you, and I look forward to helping improve Socrates as best we can! - Privatemusings (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancient philosophy time line notes

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

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

Socratic Problem Re-write

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

I've edited it to be more neutral and to be more clear. Does anyone know in which one of his writings or essays that Nietzsche criticized Socrates? -Taospark (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche touches on Socrates most heavily in "Twilight of the Idols". There are also references in "The Gay Science" as well as "Birth of Tragedy". Most Specific is in "Twilight of the Idols" which has a collection of aphorisms specifically titled "The Problem of Socrates", which makes up a ""chapter"" of the book.

Jibberish

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

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

Vegetarian?

I've heard from a number of claims that he's a vegetarian. Is there any proof of this? There has been no proof found in this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.12.108 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Epilepsy

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

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

Section on Mysticsm seems to have unrelated content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lead

G'day one and all... it's a longstanding aim of mine to try and get this article up to 'featured' status (which it so richly deserves!) - with that in mind, I've reworked the lead quite a lot to try and get a slightly better encyclopedic tone.. I found the previous version very interesting, and eminently publishable - but to my eye it sacrificed neutrality a bit in it's weighting... hence the rewrite... feedback most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I share your concern about the quality of this article. Immediately, I question the current opening. I checked back to the version you had worked on in July, which gives an overview of Socrates' contributions, and since then, it's been changed to focus on the "Socratic problem" addressed in the second section. Also, the quote used in the third paragraph struck me as odd (besides containing an obvious typo which I fixed). It turns out the quote's source is a more recent illustrated work, not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but just the same, I wouldn't consider the book scholarly, nor substance of the quote notable. My overall impression is that the "lead" here, that is, Socrates and his contributions to Western philosophy, is now buried in paragraph after paragraph about his being an "enigmatic" figure. Yes, that's important, but it shouldn't overshadow everything else. How would you – and others – feel about reverting the opening to the previous version? Allreet (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit boldly; if there is a need for consensus, it will become apparentAnarchangel (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Plato and the lead...

I have a growing feeling that the lead is becoming overly focused on the issue of how little is known about Socrates. I think maybe we're introducing the concept of 'Plato's Socrates' rather too heavily - in fact a bit clumsily... any thoughts before I try a revision? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. The phrase "known only through other people's accounts" could fairly be attributed to almost any historical figure who left behind no writings and also to a great many who did leave behind writings that are now no longer extant (e.g., Alexander the Great, and almost any pre-Socratic philosopher). So the phrase isn't very informative, and its inclusion suggests that Socrates' case is peculiar. Same for the phrase "enigmatic figure": Lots of historical figures and lots of philosophers were and are enigmatic, i.e. hard to understand; it's not peculiar to Socrates. I'm not suggesting that Socrates' case isn't a peculiar one; but the initial sentences in the current version of the article don't clearly identify his peculiarities, and they should be if they are mentioned at all. You're also right that the so-called problem of Socrates can be raised more elegantly and more clearly. Isokrates (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we may have raised it better in the past, actually.. I'll dig through the history, and try and drop a diff. in here. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Birds

User:Lucretius/Aristophanes and Socrates I've pasted this 'userbox' here as a way of hinting something like: "Socrates was also ridiculed by Aristophanes in his play The Birds and maybe that should be mentioned in the article." You might suppose I am also using this opportunity to advertise a new category of userboxes 'Classical Latin and Greek Literature' (see Wikipedia:Userboxes). So far I'm the only contributor to the new category. Lucretius (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Known Qoutes: -"The law is reason free from passion."

On SOKRATES

In reality, we do not know the real Sokrates or his philosophy because he did not believe in writing his teachings down. Consequently, he did not leave us a first-hand account of his teachings.

A significant problem arises in that the Sokrates that appears in Platon's various dialogues bears little or no resemblance to the Sokrates that appears in the writings of Xenophon. Both of these men were students of Sokrates, both of them knew him. While Platon's version is the most commonly accepted version, there is little direct evidence of the accuracy of this view.

However, Sokrates was known to have complained about Platon's representation of him, which calls into question the accuracy of the Platonic Sokrates.

I will admit that I, like Thomas Jefferson, am no fan of Platon's. Thus, I have preference for the Sokrates as portrayed by Xenophon. However, I would agree that Platon's version could be the accurate one ... but I hope not because I would like to think well of Sokrates.

R.H. Ralls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.214.132 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

edit protected

please add {{ refimprove or inline }} to the article. most of the sections in the second half have no inline citations. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish Sorani Article

Hello There,
Admin/Another one who's could to edit the article, Please add the Kurdish Sorani Article to the Languages list:
ckb:سۆکرات (فەیلەسووف)

Thanks alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.159.64.132 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate?

The approximates dates given of birth and death imply he was sixty-nine at his execution; he says himself that he was "past seventy," which means that if he was executed in 399 BCE, he must have been born, at the latest, in 470 BCE to be seventy-one. Are you sure that's right? Twin Bird (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You refer to a statement by Socrates that he was "past seventy". This statement does occur in one of our texts of Plato's Apology 17d, where the text reads pleiō hebdomēkonta, "more than seventy". But not all editors adopt that version: Burnet did not, nor does the 1995 OCT, both of which have simply hebdomēkonta, "seventy" (without pleiō), in accordance with all but that one text of the Apology. (In Plato's Crito 52e, we likewise have just hebdomēkonta.) In any case, there are other considerations which, I think, support a birthdate of 470 BCE - i.e. even if he was not more than 70 years old at the time of the trial. I raised some of these issues a while back in this Discussion; it is now found in Archive 1. There I said the following, which I think is worth repeating:

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.

But, again, whether we prefer 470 or 469 as his birth year is based mostly on guesswork and probabilities. Isokrates (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Misconceptions

I was perusing this well-written article and found two areas that, while not entirely untrue, could be misleading in their current context.

The first is found in the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the Trial and Death portion of the article. It states that "He proceeded to test the riddle through approaching men who were considered to be wise by the people of Athens, such as statesmen, poets, and artisans, in order to refute the pronouncement of the Oracle." While this statement is true in the fact that he did indeed talk to the "wise" men of Athens after hearing the words of the Oracle, the word "proceeded" implies that he was not having discussions with these people before hearing the Oracle's pronouncement. In truth, there is evidence that he had been talking with the people of Athens for a much longer period of time, and that the only difference between before and after the Oracle's statement is that afterwards his conversations were conducted in a different frame of mind. -Though of course the word "proceeded" may mean that Socrates continues his search for Wisdom, and now that instead of searching for it through examination elsewhere, he also now searched it through his own being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.229.147 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The second is found in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the Trial and Death portion of the article. It states that "He was, nevertheless, found guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock." This statement is also partially true, in that he was found guilty of corrupting youthful minds, and that he did indeed die by drinking hemlock. The misconception lies in the words "sentenced to death by." The research I have done has shown, with very few exceptions, that he had a choice between exile or death. -Though, he did indeed have a choice, in a manner of speaking, Socrates refused the exile and thus chose the sentence of death. In either case, the becomming exiled was a form of death, where Socrates clarified that to have his home, his parent as it were (i.e. the government which he has chosen to abide), would be a form of death of the self. N.B. He was sentenced to death after he refused exile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.229.147 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that I am not an avid researcher. I stumbled upon this article while doing an assignment in my Philosophy class, and felt that my observations could be beneficial to others who, like me, are easily puzzled by misconceptions that indirectly oppose each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunoir (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

criticism

after not seeing this section in Aristotle article, i started looking at articles of other ancient philosophers to find a pattern, and actually this one seems to be the only one that has an explicit 'criticism' section. any thoughts about that? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I did this in part a long while ago to give verifiable information as to Socrates' effect on Western philosophy, which is noticeably absent given his unique stature in the field's eyes. That he spawned 4 completely different branches of Western Philosophy was something I had to bring to attention.

-63.173.226.221 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

Why is there no mention here of his relationship with Alcibiades? And why is there nothing here about his other homosexual affections and comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.227.107.137 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

BCE(Date Style)

I undid change of date style, As I don't believe there has been any discussion all together on it? 0zlw (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Boule and income

This article wonders what income Socrates had. In the Boule article it suggests that at about the time he was a member, members of the Boule may have been paid - to encourage poorer men to serve. Is this, therefore, a source of income? Myrvin (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Socrates|b007zp21}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Introduction

The last line about Socrates being at best enigmatic and at worst unknown ought to be cited or removed. It's not POV necessarily but it can't really be supported with "fact" - closest thing would be the consensus of experts, which is not cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.121.38 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Xanthippe

I have twice deleted a sentence claiming that "Xanthippe's own opinion of Socrates was that he was a good-for-nothing idler." The source cited to support this does not refer to any ancient sources (i.e. Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Diogenes Laertius). I know the [Durant book] is well-known, but it was written 80 years ago and it really doesn't hold up against contemporary scholarship on Socrates. For instance, Durant says Socrates and Xanthippe "seem to have had some dialogues which Plato failed to record." This statement seems rather absurd. It is now widely accepted that Plato didn't "record" real life dialogues. Unless someone can find a better source (either Ancient or current scholarship), this bit on Xanthippe has to go. Fixer1234 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle says that Socrates had one son with Xanthipi named Lamproklea and he also had two sons named Sophroniscus and Menexenus with Myrto, the daughter of the Athenian politician Aristeides and that Socrates never married Myrto and that he had a parallel relationship with her.-- 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestanaios (talk • contribs)

In the section about his life, it reads that "though characterized as unattractive in appearance and short in stature, Socrates married Xanthippe, who was much younger than he." The last part of that statement is a bit inane as it was quite common for older men to marry younger women. It isn't worth having in the article. 96.240.181.5 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

in popular culture?

I'd be interested to find out if there's a list anyplace of all the fictional depictions of Socrates - I mean fictional in the modern sense. Like in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure and Peter Kreeft's "Socrates Meets..." series. I know this subject is very small and obscure compared to the great man's great thoughts but it would be interesting nonetheless to see a listing of depictions of Socrates in popular culture like there is for many other subject on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation

In Later historical effects

• Subject/Verb Agreement
  

First sentence says, "While some of the later contributions of Socrates to Hellenistic Era culture and philosophy as well as the Roman Era has been lost to time..."

First sentence should say, "While some of the later contributions of Socrates to Hellenistic Era culture and philosophy as well as the Roman Era have been lost to time..."

The salient sentence elements are: "... some... contributions... have..."

Sesquipedalian101 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for catching that (and for the clear details). All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"After he lay down, the man who administered the poison pinched his foot." would read more clearly as "After he lay down, the man who had administered the poison pinched his foot."

Additionally, "Shortly before his death, Socrates speaks his last words to Crito:..." should read, "Shortly before his death, Socrates spoke his last words to Crito:..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.4.41 (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrections and Addition

This "Socrates" article makes an incorrect assumption:

"In any case, it is clear Socrates thought the rule of the Thirty Tyrants was at least as objectionable as Democracy; when called before them to assist in the arrest of a fellow Athenian, Socrates refused and narrowly escaped death before the peace loving angels were overthrown."

Socrates’ affiliation with the Thirty is actually unclear. While Socrates did refuse to heed the Thirty’s order to arrest Leon of Salamis, he remained in Athens throughout their reign. Many Athenians fled Athens, and Socrates had ample opportunity to join them. It is therefore difficult to ascertain Socrates’ political preferences from his interaction with the Thirty.

This "Socrates" article also states:

"Xenophon and Plato agree that Socrates had an opportunity to escape, as his followers were able to bribe the prison guards. He chose to stay for several reasons:

He believed such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher has. If he fled Athens his teaching would fare no better in another country as he would continue questioning all he met and undoubtedly incur their displeasure. Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do otherwise would have caused him to break his "social contract" with the state, and so harm the state, an act contrary to Socratic principle."

These are the reasons Plato has the character of Socrates assert in his dialogues. These are not necessarily the reasons the historical Socrates gave for remaining in prison.

Additionally, in Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths, Robin Waterfield adds another interpretation of Socrates' last words:"Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt." He suggests that Socrates was a voluntary scapegoat; his death was the purifying remedy for Athens’ misfortunes. In this view, the token of appreciation for Asclepius would represent a cure for the ailments of Athens.

There should probably be an edit for "he is an enigmatic figure known only through the classical accounts of his students.". There are other accounts about Socrates from Aristophenes and Xenophon, neither of whom were his students. A more qualified statement would be better, something to the effect that he's known primarily through Plato, a student. Alternatively, that section could be cut altogether, with other information later in the article discussing the primary sources on Plato. Mr. T 04:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Thrasymachus (talk • contribs)

Xenophon was most certainly a companion of Socrates, as his "Memorabilia" makes clear throughout. Socrates did not have 'students' in the same way that Sophists like Thrasymachus did, however,as he accepted no pay and did not claim a body of knowledge he was competent to teach. As such, even though Plato was undoubtedly decisively influenced by Socrates it is not clear that Plato was anything more than Socrates' companion throughout his youth. Cjk1981 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dialectic and Spiritual Exercises

There are two interpretations of the dialectic. The conventional view is the method of question and answer but there is also the idea of having a direct experience of the Form of the Good. Related to this is the view of Pierre Hadot that the dialogues are not just an intellectual exercise in pursuit of the truth but are spiritual exercises and to do with the care of the self. Oxford73 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Life

"...who was much younger than he." It should be: "...than him."

i would like to say that socrates was just enigmatic character in plato`s republic. for instance apology of socrates . socrates was greek philosopher who defended himself discussing critizing the oposition thought which was from sophistes. sophistes used to pretend being the most sages in the city. they say that they know eveything . in the other hand socrates said that the only things we can know is nothing . actually this is very important to know about socrates philosophy especially about the context< knowlege > —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.251.138 (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

virtue

on this subject and several others in this article i would like to try and help by bringing verifiable sources for citations and more, just that i'm new to Wikipedia and in need of help in the semi protected issue please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My true self (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification:

The article states:

"In the play, Socrates is ridiculed for his dirtiness, which is associated with the Laconizing fad"

Which? His dirtiness or the ridiculing? Nagelfar (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.118.173.176, 12 September 2011

Please Change Socrates from being an Author to being a Philosopher. Socrates is not accredited with writing anything. He is most commonly known as a character in Plato's writings. Socrates is the founder of western philosophy, but he is not an author.

203.118.173.176 (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? He is called a philosopher, and I haven't found where he is called an author. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly it was changed after the request was made but no mention of author in the article currently. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations again.

I hadn't realised how poor the referencing in this article is. I've put in some specific tags and a general one too. This has been noticed above as well. I'll try to improve things, but it's going to be a big job. The article is looking like it's been written by undergraduate philosophers from their notes. We need references not some lecturer's opinion. The lecturer would agree. Myrvin (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In Politics, the "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand" quote seems to come from a book about Atlantis being in Florida. It is in there in quotes, but I can't find the original quote. I'll look a little longer, but then I'll remove it. Myrvin (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Verbiage to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Trial_and_death

According to the text, I have aquired from my father some years ago, and his knowledge of the greek language is vast and thorough, told me, "before Socrates drank the potion, he shocked the world stating, 'From this life to the next', and further believed he was not going to a place of darkness, or without, rather, he was going to a place where he would speak to the great minds before him and would be able to have discussions with them'" So it is not a question of what he last said, but rather what was said in the diaologs of the republic and Crito portion of this book.

The book is vary old, and on one side / left / of each page is the actual greek words, and to the / right / of opposing page, is the English transcriptions.

If you could review and find out more, and add this to the section and possible add:

and freedom, of the soul from the body. Additionally, his last words from the transcribed book found here. states, "from this world to the next", and he believed he would be among the great minds before him and looked forward to discussions with them..."

thanks, oly, aka Pete R. ps. I am greek, as is my father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oly562 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholars referred to

Moses I. Finley writes about the trial of Socrates in his work 'Democracy: ancient and modern'. He believes the key factor is corrupting the youth in addition to the political infighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekeirel (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

LGBT

If Sapphos is categorized as "LGBT" then why not Socrates?

See above on the removal of the LGBT WikiProject banner from this article.  ^davidiad_.: 15:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening

• As one recent commentator has put it, Plato, the idealist, offers "an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of the 'Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."[3]

Is this really necessary? I think the opening paragraphs of this article should not include a quote from 2008. Let's keep it clean, shall we?85.50.153.4 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is so wrong with 2008, even in the lead. This is a pucka quote from a proper source, so I don't see why it isn't 'clean' - whatever that means. It's rather over the top - but that's what the source says. Myrvin (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not 2008, the problems are 1) notability of the remark 2) suitability to the prominence given. To me, this remark detracts from the meaning by submitting one class of opinion unchallenged, and can be removed without any appreciable loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.163.170 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've tried moving it to later on. Myrvin (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2012

If anything in general can be said about the philosophical beliefs of Socrates, it is that he was morally, intellectually, and politically at odds with his many of his fellow Athenians.

24.60.168.53 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

should read "politically at odds with many of his fellow Athenians."

extra "his" should be removed.

Done Rivertorch (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

LGBT category

I have removed the {{LGBTProject}} tag from this talkpage, as its presence is completely unsubstantiated. The only mention of homosexuality in the article is to the effect that Socrates may have exempted himself from such homosexuality as was mainstream in Athens during his day. I.e., Socrates was, if anything, "more hetero" (or, perhaps more to the point, asexual) than the average Athenian of his day. Why this should buy him an entry in the "LGBT articles" category is completely mysterious. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality per se was not particularly common in Ancient Greece. Pederasty was common, but anal intercourse with a younger man was thought to be a sex crime. Such behavior was one of the original meanings of the word "hubris." I agree, however, that there is no evidence to suggest that Socrates was LBGT, and there is specific mention of Socrates refraining from any sort of sexual intercourse with younger men. There's no reason to think that anyone in ancient Greece thought of themselves using such concepts.74.232.71.249 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern performances and reception

I would like to suggest adding the following final paragraph to the Later Historical Effects section:

Over the past century numerous plays about Socrates have also focussed on Socrates’ life and influence. One of the most recent has been Socrates on Trial: A play based on Aristophanes' Clouds and Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, adapted for modern performance.

In the Further Reading section, I would also like to suggest adding:

Irvine, Andrew David (2008). Socrates on Trial. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-9783-5 (cloth); ISBN 978-0-8020-9538-1 (paper). --7532665a (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Plato was a playwright??

This article twice refers to Plato as a "playwright." Although it's difficult to prove the negative in accounts of historical figures, I'm fairly certain that someone has distorted the common story that Plato was originally a poet. On a cursory search, all of the academic sources I can find regarding Plato as a playwright are referring to his choice to write in dialogue form, and are comparing his style to that of Greek drama. Certainly, they would mention if there's any extant story that Plato wrote even a single play.74.232.71.249 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reference in the article to Plato being a playwright. Can you be more specific? Paul August ☎ 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Look under Covertness, midway down the first paragraph. Rivertorch (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, don't know how I missed that. Paul August ☎ 17:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This site [1] says: "Olympiodorus tells us that Plato originally wished to be a playwright ..." I can't find it yet. Myrvin (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It may come from "The trial of Socrates" by I F Stone p.4. He refers to Olympiodorus. Myrvin (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Grote in "Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates" p.115 says that Diogenes Laertius says that Plato was a poet before meeting Socrates - but doesn't say playwright. Myrvin (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Found it. Made a change, with a citation. Myrvin (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

but the truth is that he didnt know how to write so he just sat around and thought about every thing he was also crazy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.238.135 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

please delete last section, of no importance to anyone but the source, a non-scholar

Ahmadiyya viewpoint

Mirza Tahir Ahmad argued in his book Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth that Socrates was a prophet of the ancient Greeks.

WHY IS THIS INCLUDED?

On this subject, this author is of no more relevance than anyone down the block. He is an absolute nobody in the scholarship.

DELETE IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to shout. I have removed the section (1) because it appears to give undue weight to the writings of someone who was not an established expert on Socrates and (2) because it contains no independent, secondary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Forced suicide?

Re this reversion: If he wasn't the victim of a forced suicide, why then is he described at Forced suicide in the following terms:

The most famous forced suicide is probably that of the philosopher Socrates, who drank hemlock after his trial for allegedly corrupting the youth of Athens.?

Hm? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I poked around a bit and found there's some disagreement on that point among various philosophers, historians, and so on. Nevertheless, I think the category is appropriate; placing the article in the cat isn't stating outright that Socrates's death was a case of forced suicide but rather acknowledging that various reliable sources say it was. Rivertorch (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And that's all we ever do here at Wikipedia: acknowledge what reliable sources say. We're not in the business of stating Unalterable Truths. Thanks for your support. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Is it really necessarily to semi-protect this page indefinitely? It's been three years since "anon weirdness" led to semi-protection. 66.224.70.107 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As a high-profile page, it is likely that we will have problems if it is not semi-protected. The fact that we haven't had anon vandalism in the past three years isn't remarkable: IPs haven't been able to vandalize it in the last three years. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that logic suggest semi-protecting the entire site? Why are IPs more qualified to add information to something obscure than this page? 66.224.70.107 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of competence to contribute. It is a matter of relentless vandalism. This page was a regular target. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Logic

According to the intro, "Plato's Socrates also made important and lasting contributions to the fields of epistemology and logic". What was it? I don't know of any specific contribution and the article doesn't talk about logic at all. As far as I know the first notable and "lasting" contributions to logic came from Aristotle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.116.161 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed it. Maybe someone will find some support. Myrvin (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2013

Please remove "None of the schools however, would inherit his tendency to openly associate with and respect women or the regular citizen." under the Immediate influence section. Stoic ethics are based on Socratic ethics. They treated everyone with respect. Musonius Rufus' discourses "That Women Too Should Study Philosophy" and "Should Daughters Receive the Same Education as Sons?" express these views. Many Stoics also believed that it was a duty to enter into politics. Thank you. Chey Cannaday (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Done That sentence has been tagged as needing a citation for almost two years, so I will assume good faith and remove it. It would be great if you could provide some replacement text and a reliable source sometime. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Trial and Death

The Apology that is given is not the same apology that we talk about today. It is known as a defense speech in this case given to a jury of about 500. There were two Apology’s presented one by Plato and one by Xenophon, historians suspect that both these two failed to give information damning Socrates rather it was all in his favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khink (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about Socrates trial is so vague it's pathetic.Is there any known record of the specific charge, and the circumstances regarding this? I came to this article via wikipedia "Obscenity" article, because of the inference that Socrates was charged with "corrupting the minds of the youth". If this charge was political, the details are sketchy. If Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens in an obscene way, this needs more information.Very dissappointed, I will try to dig up validated reference material for this famous trial.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it this at its heart was a political trial, a mock trial if you please, the "corrupting the minds of the youth" is basically making them question the existence of the gods, which caused the same reaction you get from a religious society as always including today. By shaking the high status of the priests once too much he has brought upon himself their wrath and this fate through "the court of the people". I have no proof, I don't know if anyone else has (due to the antiquity of these documents), but those are my two cents109.160.165.251 (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No evidence of atheism

I can't find evidence that Socrates denied the existence of Hephestus, Zeus, and other gods. Can anyone find such evidence?--71.108.6.114 (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. But it's not the only question that needs to be considered in order to answer the question of whether Socrates was an atheist. The matter is complicated by the fact that "atheist" in current English does not quite have the same meaning as the Greek term (atheos) from which our word came. If one wants to know whether Socrates was an "atheist" as defined by current English, then whether or not he believed in some god or other would indeed be the only relevant question. But, as Richard Janko makes clear, the concept of "atheist" in ancient Greek was more complicated: "Whether or not Socrates had ever been one of these scientists [i.e. the natural philosophers], and whether or not he believed in the supernatural, as he clearly did, he was punished because many thought he was an 'atheist' (atheos) in the Greek sense…. This broad term included people who believed in new gods, in one god, or in no god at all" (p. 48, "Socrates the Freethinker" in Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar (eds.) A Companion to Socrates). There are indeed some good reasons for thinking that Socrates may indeed have been an "atheist" in the ancient Greek sense of the term. As Aristophanes portrayed him in the Clouds, he accepted the views of the natural philosophers who notoriously rejected the personal gods of traditional ancient Greek religion. Of course, many of the Presocratics used religious terminology to describe natural phenomena: according to Aristotle (Physics 203b3-15), "Anaximander and most of the natural philosophers" said that the archai were "divine" because they were "immortal and indestructible". But their archai were impersonal "divinities". As John Burnet notes, "The use of the term ['god' or 'divine'] by the Milesians means rather that the place once occupied by the gods of religion was now being taken by the great fundamental phenomena of nature, and the later Greeks were quite right, from their own point of view, in calling that atheism" (p. 201, "Greek Philosophy" in his Essays and Addresses). Indeed, "Hippo…was nicknamed 'the Atheist' 'because he assigned the cause of everything to nothing else besides water' " (Jonathan Barnes, quoting Diels-Kranz 38A8 in his The Prescratic Philosophers (2nd ed.), p. 96). Burnet says that the Athenians called Hippo an atheist because he believed that in death he would be equal to the gods, i.e. immortal (Burnet, "Socrates", Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Burnet here refers to the epitaph attributed to Hippo at Diels-Kranz 38B2, also quoted in Barnes op. cit.). Hippo is particularly interesting for us because, as Burnet notes, a medieval scholium attributes to Hippo one of the wacky views – that the heavens are like an oven - attributed to Socrates in the Clouds (line 96). All the more interesting for us is the fact that some scholars have attributed to Socrates Hippo's view about personal immortality; Burnet, e.g., claims that the Socrates of Plato's Apology accepted this kind of view (p. 257, "The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul", Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 7); Gregory Vlastos says too says that for Socrates "our soul is our self" and "[i]n the Crito [54b-c] he reveals his faith in the soul's survival" (Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, p. 55). Burnet makes it clear that such a belief alone would be grounds for a charge of atheism: "There was no room in the public religion [of Athens] for any doctrine of immortality. The gods alone are immortal, and it would be shocking to suggest that human beings might be so too. The dead are just the dead, and how can the dead be deathless? In the heroic age, indeed, some human beings had attained immortality by being turned into gods and heroes, but such things were not expected to happen now" (p. 249, "The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul"). Even according to the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery cults the immorality of the soul did not mean that we ourselves survived death in any personally meaningful way; so Burnet explains that, even according to the Eleusinian or Orphic view, the soul "may be divine and immortal, but it is really no concern of ours except in sleep and at the moment of death. It is not identified with what we call 'I' " (ibid. p. 251). So there is some pretty good reason for thinking that Socrates was an atheist in the ancient Greek sense, if only because of his unorthodox belief that we survive bodily death in a personally meaningful way, i.e. that we "mortals" are really immortal and our souls divine. (Some of the above I copied from some comments I had written earlier on the Plato Discussion page.) Isokrates (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's quite intriguing, if a really odd sort of atheism. With that definition, Jesus would have been an atheist because he claimed to be the son of God. And lots of Christians believe the soul is immortal too. Actually if I recall correctly, in the Roman empire, Christians WERE considered atheists too, so it basically must mean 'you don't believe in OUR gods'. I haven't done much research into Socrates (I know only that I know nothing, huh?), but I've read in a few places that Socrates actually did tend towards or straight-up believed in monotheism or deism. I wonder if someone in the know could expand the article with something about that. I totally hope it's true, because it would be hilarious, all things considered (no offense atheists, but it would be funny). And out of curiosity, does this have anything to do with the heavy emphasis on 'we don't know what beliefs are really Socrates, it could be all Plato fault'? Isn't that true of, well, everyone who didn't write their own biography? Rhetorical question, I guess. I hate having think about bias all the time, especially in encyclopedia articles, so I'm hoping a magic fairy will come along and fix everything. Wave if you see one. SuperMudz (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wave* - oh, wait, no, that was a goblin :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.165.251 (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

He was not sentenced to death by drinking hemlock as the main page states.156.110.86.102 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit requests

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chocolate-Socrates/339860762825655?ref=hl is his facebook page

170.140.105.11 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Only the choccie one, unfortunately. --Stfg (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we just unlock the page now please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.105.11 (talk) 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014

Please make it funnier 108.35.101.63 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Mixed race

There is evidence that Socrates was at least partially African. Just his usual physical description indicates this (a flat nose and curly hair.) He was a very important person and the article should have some mention of this.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What evidence are you citing? That no one of Greek heritage can have curly hair and a flat nose? If you have any literary evidence, preferably from one of the many ancient sources on Socrates, please feel free provide it. Catiline63 (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do people think that all important figures in ancient greece were black? On nearly all the talk pages there are people claiming that everyone was black, why? It's not as if Greece had an African population, the few if any would have been travelers or slaves, not citizens of Athens like Socrates, yet Ancient greek and roman topics are all plagued by people with no education in history claiming that socrates, euclid, aesop, plato, aristotle, and caesar were black, where is this obsession coming from? It's all uncited completely made-up stuff, like smokey's comment, socrates has a stub nose=black, my dad has a snub nose and curly hair and he is Irish therefore socrates is Irish, no seriously please we really need to consider if Socrates was, Irish, maybe he was part Irish or has an Irish Grandparent. Also, if smokey had ever read any Aristotle he'd know that he refers directly to greek men having white skin all the time in examples. I think he even mentions Socrates directly in one of them. TheBookishOne (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Foucault Reinterprets Socrates' Last Words

In The Courage of Truth, Michel Foucault makes a compelling case against the traditional interpretation, which Nietzsche also held, and which the primary Wikipedia article offers, that Socrates' last words, "Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt," implies that Socrates felt he was cured of the disease of life, or that dying, in freeing the soul from the body, can be understood as a kind of cure, thus deserving of a sacrifice to Asclepius. Foucault points out that neither Plato nor Socrates saw life as a disease, and, referring to Dumezil, makes a compelling argument that Socrates' last words signified that he believed himself, along with Crito and his followers, to be cured from the disease of false opinion.

In this sense, Socrates stayed true to his conviction that it was better to die than to escape, than to accept the false opinion of his followers who believed it was better to live by any means, or to accept the opinion of those who tried him. He did not compromise, did not submit to false opinion, and, in the context of Foucault's lectures, Socrates thus remains true to his own sense of parrhesia, of telling the truth, of caring for himself and for others, and thus freeing himself of falsity. See The Courage of Truth for what appears to be the most convincing, historically and philosophically significant interpretation of Socrates' last words, for Foucault's lens gives new depth to truth-telling practices and to the care of self and others (kinds of parrhesia) which constitute an under-examined core of Western philosophy since Socrates, a core that transcends ontology and metaphysics -- theories of truth, subjectivity, knowledge, power, etc. -- and focuses on an aesthetics of existence, a lifestyle of truth.

Socrates' last words, then, according to Foucault, show harmony between his ontology and lifestyle, which integrate his care for himself, others, truth, and the courage of the "True Life of Truth," the very basis and purpose of his dialogues: to navigate the dizzying array of views, especially in a democracy, Foucault states, which allows anyone to say anything, anywhere, at any time, and thus to cure ourselves of false opinions.

• For these reasons, I believe that the part of the article on Socrates' last words should be revised to include Foucault's central contribution that Socrates requested a cock be sacrificed due to being cured, along with Crito and his followers, from the disease of false opinion, as this has a significant impact, as Foucault discusses, on the foundations and trajectories of Western philosophy, namely, the branches of metaphysics and aesthetics of existence. Rleack (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleack (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a full reference, & preferably a Google books link? You should really provide the words you want added or changed. Myrvin (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

minor edit : drop the "later" in "known chiefly through the accounts of later classical writers"

Socrates is characterized as "an enigmatic figure known chiefly through the accounts of later classical writers" -- "especially," the lede says, Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. But all three were contemporaries of Socrates, and the same sentence (the article's 2nd) confusingly _cites_ Aristophanes as a contemporary. _Clouds_ was written decades before Socrates' death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Freytag (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Myrvin (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

link to be added in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_%28dialogue%29 is not linked in the text cabn it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.189.179 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Perseus Tufts shows a different translation of the word < Socrates >

this seems to correspond closer to the English. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=Socrates&la=greek , being σοξρατες. Whalestate (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

although the http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*swkra%2Ftous&la=greek&can=*swkra%2Ftous0&prior=kra/tos#lexicon translation is supported by web pages from a search of Σωκράτης, Perseus Tufts doesn't strictly show this word as actually only as <Socrates> Whalestate (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

nor is Σωκράτης supported by the definitions from sources in LSJ Middle Liddell of Perseus Tufts, if a person activates the links to these they show the same incorrect definition Whalestate (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

other spellings

http://www.fao.org/figis/vrmf/finder/!/display/vessel/UID/030090294 - Whalestate (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)