Wikipedia

Talk:Socrates/GA2

< Talk:Socrates
Latest comment: 2 years ago by AleatoryPonderings in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago27 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AleatoryPonderings (talk · contribs) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AleatoryPonderings: thanks for taking this review! I am looking forward on working together! I have to mention that in real life, I am having exams in November the 3rd. I may not respond promptly until then. But pls go forward with your review! Cheers! Cinadon36 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Totally fine - we can both go slowly :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lede

edit
  • I have never heard of "Western ethical" as a descriptor for a philosophical tradition. This is an arguable WP:EGG since the link is to virtue ethics. Is there a reason this term is used in the lede? It's not used anywhere else in the article.
    • Me neither. Changed [1].
  • "Accused of corrupting the youth". My sense is that "corrupting the youth" is a term of art that has little or no applicability outside the trial of Socrates. It might come across oddly to readers. Is that your sense as well? If so, an explanatory footnote might be helpful. Not necessary, just a thought.
    • I think it sounds vague, but to be honest, I have heard of it several times. Both in high school (in modern Greece, lots of ancient Greece is within the curriculum) and in modern literature. I guess this is because, the Apology reads "That Socrates violates the law by corrupting of the youth, and not believing in the gods of the state, but other new divinities of his own. (24b–c)" I prefer keeping it as it is, tbh. Cinadon36 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Plato's dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity, from which Socrates has become renowned for his contributions to the fields of rationalism, ethics and epistemology. Is this sourced in the body? I'm having trouble seeing sources for "renown".
  • Is the last paragraph of the lede sourced in the body? It makes some rather sweeping claims.
    • I rephrased to match the source closer [3]. Source is SEP article on Socrates.

Sources and the Socratic problem

edit
  • What is the relevance of the citation of Kahn 1998 at xvii (note 3)? See doi:10.1017/CBO9780511585579.001. Kahn generally talks about Socratic dialogues there but doesn't specifically address the point made before the citation, if I read him correctly.
    • I do not know what I was thinking there. I must have been reading Kahn p1, but, it is already oversourced, so I removed it.[4]
  • The citation to Cooper & Hutchinson at 1307–1308 doesn't seem to support the statement made there. (I've no doubt that they say this somewhere else in that massive edition, or that some other source could be found.) I have tagged with {{Failed verification}} accordingly and will do so if I find similar issues elsewhere.
    • Removed the whole sentence[5]. It was added by another user,[6] and tbh I didn't check it. While I am almost sure it stands true, I generally don't like sources dealing with other philosophers. Cooper and Hutchinson's work is on Plato. The bibliography on Socrates is already huge, we should not be looking at other sources. Now, I have to deal with the flow and the next bulletpoint.
  • Likewise with the citation to Göring 2011 at 24–25 (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.002). Doesn't seem to support the claim that most dialogues were written after Socrates died.
    • Hmmm....here is how I did it wrong. It reads "It is also controversial as to whether the first Socratic dialogues had already been written while Socrates was still alive, or whether this type of dialogue was originally created only after the occurrence of his violent death in 399 BCE ." So, my conclusion was: An opinion says that all dialogues were wriiten after his death. The other opinion, I thought, it says that Most (all minus first dialogues) were after his death. So...I thought most is a proper word. Anyway, I will check it in other RS to see if it can be sourced elsewhere. So...lets see...pls wait.--->time passesOk, I reworded it.[7] I couldnt find a source claiming the exact thing I wrote.
  • Xenophon was a well-educated, honest man, but lacked the intelligence of a trained philosopher. This is technically sourced but the phrase "intelligence of a trained philosopher" strikes me as bizarre—do we want to be saying in encyclopedic voice that philosophers are more intelligent than others?
    • Hmmmm....You have a point but I thought that if someone is trained in philosophy, he becomes more intelligent to comprehend philosophical arguments. I will reword it. Thinking of how...It might take a day or two since I am not a philosopher!  :-)--->So, I did this [8]. Is it an improvement? What do you think?
  • I am noticing quite a lot of the statements in this section are close to what the sources say, but aren't entirely consistent with them. I am reworking and adding {{cn}} accordingly.
    • Right, I think I have fix them. [9]. Most of them were closed, but should have been closer. Maybe it is because of extensive C/E by several users (I asked for it).
  • Who are the Burnet and Taylor of the "Burnet–Taylor thesis"?
    • I removed it. It seems trivia info. [10]
  • Can you explain what enkrateia is (last paragraph of "Plato and Xenophon")? Dorion 2010 calls it "self-mastery" at p 4, but if this term isn't introduced before it's used with some background, it's hard to understand the significance. Ditto with elenchus, although that's briefly mentioned in the lede.
    • Is it better now? [11]
  • The point about intertextuality, which is a broad and complex term, is a little confusing. Do you just mean that each text's narrative about Socrates could be sourced from another text, as opposed to what the historical Socrates did?
    • Maybe it needs rewording. I mean that one author was "inspired" by another author (and vise versa). The oracle story at the text of the source is characteristic. So, when we find similar stories, we cant conclude "oh! both authors are saying this, so it is true". Any suggestions on how to fix this? Intertextuallity is a difficult term, I try to avoid terms that the average reader needs to click to understand what s going on...Hm..Is this [12] better?
  • Unfortunately, this characterization of Socrates in Clouds is the only one that survives today. This doesn't seem true if taken literally, since this section discusses Xenophon's and Plato's characterizations of Socrates. And Guthrie says at 40 that Socrates "was mentioned to our knowledge by four other writers of the Old Comedy, Callias, Ameipsias, Eupolis and Telecleides". What did you mean by this sentence? I'd also get rid of the "unfortunately", since it reads like editorialization.
    • Correct, removed[13] I meant Aristophanes depiction of Socrates was the most influential- by far.
  • "Sophistism" - do you mean "sophism" or "sophistry"?
    • Sophism. Changed. [14]
  • "by the age of 42" - Konstan at 85 says "When Clouds was produced, Socrates was almost forty-five years old" - did you mean 45?
  • "Current scholarship does not consider Aristophanes's work to be very helpful in reconstructing the historical Socrates, except perhaps with regard to some characteristics of his personality." I don't think the cited source supports this statement.
    • Hmmm..... It is my interpretation that it does support the statement because at subchapters "clearing the ground", Waterfield is making a quick presentation of current literature on each ancient author. So, while it can not be deduced from pages 7-8 alone, my overall impression is that, this is the argument made by author. Anyway, I will try to improve it....---> New version [16]. What do you think?
  • "… basing his arguments on Aristotle's interpretation of Socratic logos" - "logos" is infamously a word with many interpretations - which one do you mean here?
    • I should have used italics. logos socraticos is used elsewhere in the text.[17] I reworded as well.
  • I have reworked the statement regarding the dominance of Joel's views until the 20th century and added a {{cn}} tag, because I don't see in Dorion a clear statement that Joel was dominant and then supplanted by Gigon and Dupréel. Maybe I'm just missing something.
    • I cant see the cn tag. Did you fix it?
  • "Later, it was suggested …" - I added a {{by whom}} tag here - the context suggests that the suggestion was by Vlastos, but it would be good to make this clear.

Biography

edit
  • "Socrates fulfilled his military service during the Peloponnesian War and distinguished himself in three campaigns." This cites Guthrie 1972 at p 2 - unless your edition has a different pagination that the one I have access to, these pages are the preface which don't say anything about Socrates. Were you thinking of another source of page?
    • You are right, it is page 59. [18]
  • "In 406 BC, Socrates participated as a member of the boule in the trial of six military commanders … " - is this episode widely reported? It seems a little WP:UNDUE to devote a whole paragraph to it if only Guthrie reports on it. I also added a {{cn}} to the sentence "In many people's eyes, the generals had thereby failed to uphold the most basic of duties." It didn't seem supported by Guthrie at 59–60. You might simply be able to delete that sentence—I'm not sure how much it adds.
    • I have seen it elsewhere (ie Cambridge companion p. 152) but still, it seems as UNDUE and it is difficult to tell the story in just one line. So I removed the paragraph. [19]
  • "Another incident that illustrates Socrates's deep respect for the law …" This descriptor, and the paragraph in general, strike me as a bit hagiographic and it's not clear to me to what extent such a gloss is supported by the sources. It may be best to tone it down.
    • But one of the more prominent characteristics of Socrates, was his respect of the law, in an extent he killed himself. I don't know how to water it down. I ll sleep on it.--->I rephrased slightly. I couldn't came up to anything better.[20]
  • "While he was physically attracted to both sexes, as was common and accepted in ancient Greece … " Unless I'm missing something, the sources only support sexual attraction to young men, and the point about bisexuality being common and accepted is not sourced.
    • [21] I have added some more pages to address this issue. It was pages 73-75, now it is 70-75
      • Where is it stated that he was sexually attracted to women? I don't see that in either the SEP article or Guthrie 70–75.
        • Oh, you are correct. Since he was married with children, I unconsciously concluded that he was bisexual. How naïve! Anyway, I was really puzzled on how to put it. I did this, but I am not sure if it is an improvement. [22]
  • " … as often happened with other older teachers and adolescent students". The first ref here cites "O'Connor p 211", but there is no page 211 in that chapter (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.003).
  • "The character of Socrates as exhibited in …" - this seems better suited for the "Socratic problem" section, especially since the depiction of Socrates in the dialogues listed is not described further.
    • I see what you mean but I tried to construct each section based on chapters relevant to that section. So I am hesitant to use a source/chapter that is not on Socratic problem to the "Socratic problem section".
  • "Socrates died in Athens in 399 BC after a trial … " - The statement that the trial lasted one day is not supported by the cited source.
    • I have added a couple of more pages. [24]

Trial of Socrates

edit
  • "Anytus was a powerful democratic politician who was despised by Socrates and his pupils Critias and Alcibiades." I don't see this in the source. Not sure if it's needed - you could probably take it out.
    • Most prob you are right. Removed [25]
  • "The religious charges certainly had substance to them; Socrates had criticized the anthropomorphism of traditional Greek religion, describing it in several cases as a daimonion, an inner voice." This is also not in the source. In my understanding, the daimonion was something Socrates said spoke to him, not a feature of the gods (anthropomorphic or otherwise). And is ancient Greek religion anthropomorphic? Aren't the Greek gods humanoid?
    • Hmm...the source says "In Athens, religion was a matter of public participation under law, regulated by a calendar of religious festivals; and the city used revenues to maintain temples and shrines. Socrates’s irreverence, Meletus claimed, had resulted in the corruption of the city’s young men (Euthyphro 3c–d). Evidence for irreverence was of two types: Socrates did not believe in the gods of the Athenians (indeed, he had said on many occasions that the gods do not lie or do other wicked things, whereas the Olympian gods of the poets and the city were quarrelsome and vindictive); Socrates introduced new divinities (indeed, he insisted that his daimonion had spoken to him since childhood).". So, the criticism of anthropomorphism to greek Gods, does not include only their appearance, but their manners as well. [26]. For Socrates, Daimonion was the voice of a god. Mcpherran at Cambridge Companion says it was the voice of a god, prob. Apollo. (p125) Ahbel Rappe writes "as well as Socrates’ decades long reputation as a suspect intellectual, an eccentric who possibly heard voices or worshipped a private deity (his daimonion, or divine sign, Ap. 31d), and who, moreover, had a pernicious effect on the youth of Athens." Apparently the accusers saw Daimonion as something having. So I reshaped the sentence. [27]
  • " … he deliberately requested that a paltry fine should be imposed on him". My sense from May and Guthrie is that the fine was not paltry - I thought it was "all he could afford" (May).
    • Yes, maybe I carried away by Guthrie, my impression was he said "since I am poor, I will pay a little amount", and then his friends raised the amount. But I was wrong. I also chacked it at Cambridge and Ahbel Rappe, p.16. The narrative is the same. [28]
  • "After a delay caused by Athenian religious ceremonies, Socrates spent his last day in prison, his friends visiting him and offering him an opportunity to escape, which he declined." I don't see this in Guthrie at 65–66. Guthrie just says "Socrates was kept in prison, where his friends were allowed to visit him, thus giving opportunity for conversations such as those related by Plato in the Crito and, on the last day of his life, the Phaedo" (p 65).
    • I inserted page 20 as well. It is a very known story. I added one more author (Ober) [29]
  • "The case for it being a political persecution is usually challenged by the existence of an amnesty that was granted to Athenian citizens in 403 BC …" This sentence is hard to understand. What exactly is the relevance of this amnesty?
    • I explained the political persecution argument a little more. I hope this settles it[30]
  • Paragraph beginning "Some ancient authors claimed that the prosecution was political." Why was this particular quotation chosen? Are the views of Aeschines of Sphettus particularly important for some reason? I also don't understand how the last sentence—"It was true that Socrates did not stand for democracy during the reign of Thirty, and that most of his pupils were against the democrats"—relates to the quotation. I don't think much would be lost if you deleted this paragraph, since the main idea we're dealing with at this point in the article is the two theories (religious v political) advanced by contemporary scholars.
    • You are right, removed. [31]
  • "On the other hand, there were many skeptics and atheist philosophers …" Is the point of this to suggest that there must have been something "extra" in Socrates' case, if other philosophers weren't prosecuted? If so it might be good to make this explicit.

Philosophy

edit
  • " … or indeed if there even was a Socratic method". The paragraph that follows is mainly about the constructivist/non-constructivist debate, not the existence or absence of a Socratic method.
    • But that debate is relevant to Socratic method and Socrates, it is described in several books on Socrates. I think it is really important for the article to reflect the various narratives and debates that have yielded from Socratic thought. (As long as they are described in books about Socrates)
  • "Making a priority of finding a definition for any aspect of knowledge is common in many of his dialogues". What is an "aspect of knowledge"? If courage, virtue, etc, are aspects of knowledge, this sentence is redundant to the one that precedes it. If an aspect of knowledge is something else, this sentence is unclear. Also, calling the dialogues "his" is a little odd—I'm used to thinking of the dialogues as Plato's, if anyone's.
    • Removed[33] since it was redundant. Other points takes as well.
  • "Some scholars have argued that Socrates does not endorse this as a principle …" (emphasis added). Is "this" the priority of definition? Or something else? Why is the Laches an example of something other than the priority of definition?
    • This-->priority of definition. I removed Laches coz it is confusing. [34]
  • "Philosopher Peter Geach, accepting that Socrates endorses the priority of definition, finds the technique fallacious …" Are you saying that, according to Geach, demonstrating that someone cannot define something does not mean that they don't know what they claim to know? I think that would be a clearer way of representing Geach's view: according to Geach, not being able to define the terms you use does not mean you don't know things expressed in those terms. The original paper (doi:10.5840/monist196650327) says Socrates's view is defined by two claims: "(A) that if you know you are correctly predicating a given term 'T' you must "know what it is to be T," in the sense of being able to give a general criterion for a thing's being T; (B) that it is no use to try and arrive at the meaning of 'T' by giving examples of things that are T." Geach then says:
    • Let us be clear that this is a fallacy, and nothing better. It has stimulated philosophical enquiry, but still it is a fallacy. We know heaps of things without being able to define the terms in which we express our knowledge. Formal definitions are only one way of elucidating terms; a set of examples may in a given case be more useful than a formal definition.
      • Yes, agree, rephrased [35]. But while I agree with PD being fallacious, I think it would be more wise not to comment on its fallaciousness or not.
  • "The debate on the issue is still unresolved." What is "the issue"? I don't think this sentence is necessary—very few issues in ancient philosophy are fully resolved …
    • Correct, it seems like editorializing also. Removed [36].
    • I have added some text on the definition. [37] based on Guthrie.
  • "Plato's Socrates often claims that he is aware of his own lack of knowledge …" You cite "Guthrie, p. 222", but there is no page 222 in the edition cited.
    • It is page 122. fixed. [38]. Sorry, it must be really annoying, I apologize.
  • Most of the parts of the section on "Socratic ignorance" are cited to McPartland, but the page numbers of the citations don't match up with the pages of her contribution to the Bloomsbury Companion. I also don't think the quotations are really helpful, since we have the summary of their meaning at the beginning of each paragraph.
  • "There are varying explanations of the inconsistency, mostly in terms of differing interpretations of the meaning of 'knowledge'." The rest of this paragraph does not discuss this intriguing suggestion. And again, the citations are to McPartland but don't line up with the page range of her chapter.
    • Ok, I will elaborate. --->So here [40]. I am not sure if I should elaborate further and use Vlastos comments on Knowledge E and C. It would turn too technical, wont it?
  • "While Socrates claims that he has acquired cognitive achievement in some aspects of knowledge …" What does this mean? What is an "aspect of knowledge"? What is a "cognitive achievement" if not knowledge? It may help to mention that there are many Greek terms for knowledge-related concepts (episteme, techne, doxa, sophrosyne, etc) not all of which match up with our English terms. [41] has some discussion of this.
    • I removed the sentence coz it was repeating staff mentioned before [42]
  • " … mostly based on the depiction of Socrates by Plato and Aristotle". You cite Lane at 239 for this, but the page numbers don't match up. Also, it might help to provide a little context for the claim about Aristotle in particular, since the discussion of him above is pretty brief.
    • Are you sure it doesnt match? I feel it does? Ok, I might add something about Aristotle, tomorrow. -->I added some info on Aristotle[43]. I placed it at the first sections, I thought it would be more relevant there.
  • "Socrates bites Euthyphro several times (metaphorically)". I don't get what this means, and I don't think the extended discussion of the Euthryphro is necessary.
    • I removed the phrase[44] It was suppose to mean that Socrates was being ironist towards Euthyphro. Although examples are not necessary, I lean towards including a few, so the reader could have a glimse on how Socrates was philosophizing (or being ironic, in this situation). Surely, they shouldn't be extensive.
  • "Aristotle used the term eirōneia (a Greek word, later Latinized, from which the English word irony comes) to describe Socrates's self-deprecation. Eirōneia, then, contrary to modern meaning, meant to conceal a narrative that was not stated …" This passage is very hard to understand.
    • Since it is hard to understand, a little out of scope (it is more about etymology of the term rather than socrates) I removed it[45]
  • The citation to Lane at 241–242 to cite the sentence beginning "The mainstream opinion …" does not correspond to the pagination of the essay.
  • "Gregory Vlastos has identified a more complex pattern of irony in Socrates, where his words have a double meaning, both ironic and not …" What is the significance of this "pattern"? It's unclear from the text.
    • I tried to elaborate, hope this is better.[47]
  • "Not everyone was amused …" The citation here does not match up with the pagination of Lane's essay.
    • Also it belongs in the reception of Socrates, so I removed it. [48]
  • "For Socrates, the pursuit of eudaimonia …" Penner does not use the word eudaimonia in the passage you cite, just "happiness". The essay also starts at page 260, not 259.
    • True, but the context seems the same. In the same book, next chapter, Bobonich says "In this chapter, I shall examine the idea of eudaimonia or happiness in Socrates’ thought" I removed it anyway[49].
  • The citation to Reshotko 2013, p. 159. does not match up with the pagination of her essay.
  • It would be good to expressly define Socratic intellectualism at some point. You sometimes suggest it is the narrow thesis that no one errs willingly (in other words, that akrasia does not exist), while you also say that it is the quite broad thesis that Socrates thought virtue and knowledge were important. In my experience the former is much more commonly associated with the term "intellectualism"—after all, it's hard to find a philosopher who doesn't think virtue and knowledge are important! One of the sources you cite ([53]) has a concise description of virtue intellectualism and motivational intellectualism—perhaps you could draw on that.
    • I rephrased. [54]. I think virtue intellectualism means that he thought knowledge is a building block of virtue. I hope it is clearer now.
  • "Priority given to the intellect as being the way to live a good life, diminishing or placing aside irrational beliefs or passions, is the hallmark of Socratic moral philosophy." This is quite a sweeping claim that probably needs more than one source/consensus among scholars.
    • Is the objection at the word "hallmark" Because ok, that sounds a little bit too much. But the rest, I dont see why it is a sweeping change. I will rephrase and if the objetion is elsewhere pls note me. --->rephrased [55] I do not consider the rest as a sweeping claim. Socrates was "notorious" for the importance he placed on rationality. (well, I like him for that part)
      • Objection was mainly to "hallmark"; I think it looks good now.
  • Brickhouse and Smith, discussing Socrates' views on akrasia ([56]), are much more circumspect than the text of the article: "Socrates's total rejection of akrasia (acting because of your irrational passions contrary to your knowledge or beliefs) has puzzled scholars."
  • "In Ancient Greece, and therefore in Athens, organized religion was fragmented …" This strikes me as quite a logical leap. Just because something was generally true in Greece does not mean it was true in Athens. I don't see much value in this paragraph, actually: it makes a bunch of very broad claims that don't add much to the reader's understanding.
    • Correct, It 's due to copyediting. Rephrased to match the source better. [57]
  • "His discussions on religion always fall under the scope of his rationalism." What does this mean?
    • Changed the word to lens. Means he examines religion using rationalism. [58]
  • " … where he reaches a revolutionary conclusion which takes him far from the age's usual practice …" This strikes me as … a little much. It's also not clear what, exactly, the revolutionary conclusion is supposed to be.
    • Ok, revolutionary might be too much. But on my defense, source says (at the previos page) "In respect of these venerable principles, Socrates can be ranked a self-conscious moral revolutionary", so maybe I was carried away. So I removed the specific word [59]. Also, I change a word to make it clearer what the conclusion is [60]
  • "The rejection of traditional forms of piety placed a moral burden on ordinary Athenians …" What is the "moral burden" and how does rejecting "traditional forms of piety" place it?
  • "Socrates argued that the gods were inherently wise and just, a perception far from traditional religion at that time." This is a stronger claim than what the source says.
    • Yes, I added 263-266. [62] I think the sentence reflects the claim of the author.
  • "The implications of this puzzle lead to the rejection of the traditional Greek theology, since the Homeric gods fought against each other." First, it's not clear that a puzzle itself can have implications—it only starts to have implications when you pick a side in the Euthyphro dilemma. Second, how exactly is Greek theology challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma? And third, why does this challenge lead us to reject Greek theology?
  • "These signs did not offer him any positive belief on moral issues; rather, they were predictions of future events that couldn't be assessed through reason." I don't understand this sentence. Why can't you assess a prediction through reason? And why can't these predictions give us beliefs about morality?
    • I rephrased a little bit since I noted there could lead to confusion[64]. I do not know the whys, I realize that the divine messages Socrates receive where about simple and plain things such as don't ride that horse, or dont take that man as your student.
  • "In Xenophon's Memorabilia, Socrates constructs an argument that resonates with a belief in intelligent design." This is quite an evasive way to phrase it. I would hew closer to what McPherran says. It would also be good to have some other sources to see whether they link this aspect of Socrates's thought to modern-day intelligent design arguments or with other intellectual traditions.
    • I rephrase to match the text better.[65] I don't know if we should add other authors addressing this issue. The same author repeats himself at Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Also at Brill Companion there are some mentions on the subject but the chapters are not specific on Socratic religion, so I would prefer to avoid them.
  • "It has been a source of puzzlement how Socratic religious beliefs can be consistent with his strict adherence to rationalism." This statement is not clearly supported by the source (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.006). It's perhaps implied in what McPherran does say on that page, but not clearly stated.
    • I was referring to this text (that is at pg 115, not 114)[[66] Our texts – Divine Mission (T3), Extrarational Information (T4), and Daimonion (T5) – should now prompt us to ask how it is that Socrates can also subscribe to his Ignorance Principle (T2): for, lacking wisdom, how can Socrates be confi dent that gods such as Apollo even exist, let alone be assured that Apollo always speaks the truth (21b) and that his divine dreams and signs are not mere delusions? Moreover, since he also endorses the Rationality Principle (T1), we can expect him to justify the claims implied by these texts; but it is hard to see how the Socratic Method could provide that sort of warrant (since it appears to only reveal the inconsistency of interlocutors’ beliefs; hence, their lack of expert knowledge). Do you still think we should rephrase? Do you have any suggestions?
  • "Socrates claims at his trial that this is what prevented him from entering into politics …" I don't think this extended quotation is helpful.
    • I rephrased[67]. It is helpful since, as Long writes, it is the fullest account of daimonion. I think now I rephrased it is clearer why it is helpful. Prior, it awkwardly, indeed.
  • "Whether Socrates genuinely thought he lacked knowledge …" Why are Vlastos's views given so much more airtime in this paragraph than everyone else's? The sentence "Knowledge-C is the something unquestionable whereas Knowledge-E is the result of Socrates's elenchus, his way of examining things" isn't quite grammatical and is pretty confusing.
    • Vlastos is a significant, if not the most significant scholar on Socrates. In Cambridge Companion, he is mentioned 166 times, while in Bloomsbury, 145 times. His views are vital. I tried to explain knowledge-E a little better[68]. I am aware that these are hard to grasp topics.
  • "Not everyone has been impressed by this semantic dualism." I can sort of see the idea here—Lesher, I take it, is saying that if Socrates thought each word had one and only one meaning, he couldn't have endorsed the dualism that Vlastos imputes to Socrates. It would be good to make the connection more explicit.
    • Correct. Rephrased[69]
  • "Socrates's theory of virtue states that all virtues are essentially one, since they are a form of knowledge." The logical connection between the virtues being one and being a form of knowledge is not clear. This whole paragraph is pretty hard to follow. Also, isn't the "unity of virtue" theory typically imputed to Plato, not Socrates? (Genuine question.)
    • Plato had a distinct theory of virtue. See for example Rowe 2006, who is quoting a paper by Cooper 1984: Everyone knows that in the Republic Plato advances the theory that the soul has three independent parts: reason, spirit and appetite, as they are usually called in English. Using this theory he constructs an account of the human virtues: each of the three parts of the soul has its own special role to play in a human being’s life, and virtue, for us, consists in each of them playing its own role fully and in harmony with the others. Thus human virtue taken as a whole, according to the Republic, is a complex interrelationship among three separate psychological elements, each of which has its own indispensable contribution to make. Now this theory of virtue contrasts sharply with the Socratic theory found, for example, in the Protagoras.2 According to the Socratic theory virtue is essentially a property of the intellect (and never mind what other parts of the soul there may be). That Plato in the Republic is self-consciously rejecting this Socratic theory is by now well accepted; and most philosophical readers no doubt agree that the Republic’s theory is a distinct improvement.... Anyway, I will try to fix that paragraph, there are some weak points there. ---->hopefully, this is an improvement [70]
  • " … and other young males". "Young male" is quite an odd phrase, but it's not clear in context how old Alcibiades was supposed to have been when Socrates (may have) had a sexual relationship with him. "Young boys" is a whole other kettle of fish—Socrates is generally thought to be a pederast, not a pedophile.
    • Changed to "young persons".[71]. I couldn't find a source commenting on the age of Alciviades when he (may have) had a sexual relation with Socrates.
  • " … since Socrates was known for his self-restraint". This formulation implies that Socrates thought he shouldn't have sexual relationships with young men. It's also not clear that general self-restraint (eg, moderation in eating or drinking) would or should extend to sex.
    • Yes, but the source implies this as well. It says "If we look more closely at these passages, something strange emerges. As the fragments from Phaedo and Aristoxenos already suggest, though Socrates may have had unusually strong sensual appetites, he seems to have had them firmly under control". We do not know. I will see if I can rephrase to make it clearer. I removed "since", maybe it makes things better...[72] Couldnt come up with a better solution.
  • The last three sentences in the paragraph beginning "The Socratic theory of love" seem kind of random. Also, I'm surprised by the claim that Socrates's views on love come mostly from Lysis. What about Symposium? (Again, genuine question.)
    • I was also more familiar with Symposium before reading the Sources, but it seems at Lysis, Socrates explores the nature of love, while Symposium, there are hints to sexual attraction. Also statements on love at Symposium are echoed in Lysis. Maybe that s why sources are discussing Lysis more than Symposium in relation to love. Anywayz, for the three last sentences, I rephrased to help with the flow. [73] I am not certain if it solves the problem.
  • "Socrates viewed himself as a political artist." This strikes me as an overly literal—and certainly controversial—reading of the quotation that follows. Greek philosophers thought of a lot of things as technai, but that doesn't mean they thought that people who practiced technai were artists in the contemporary sense of that word.
    • I changed the opening sentence. [74]
  • " … as Socrates did not hold any respect for politicians and rhetoricians who would stoop to using tricks to mislead the public". This overreads the source, IMO.
    • Yes, correct. I changed the sentence. We are closer to the source now [75]
  • "A less mainstream argument suggests that Socrates was for democratic republicanism, placing Athens above the people and occupying in the middle ground of democrats and oligarchs." The claim that republicanism is the "middle ground" between democracy and oligarchy is controversial, to say the least. It would help to explain the version of republicanism ascribed to Socrates, as—unlike democracy and oligarchy—it's a pretty specific and not super widely known political theory.
  • I think the last paragraph in the political philosophy section should be removed or expanded. At present, it's sort of a hodgepodge of claims that aren't well developed.

Legacy

edit
  • "Almost all philosophical currents after Socrates traced their roots to him: Plato's Academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, the Cynics, and the Stoics." I don't really see this in the sources cited.
    • At Long, it says: Socrates, then – and this is the second salient fact – owes his philosophical significance to the diverse ways he was interpreted, lauded, and sometimes even criticized by authors who, thanks to their own intellectual and educational creativity, made Greek philosophy the major cultural presence it had not yet become during his own lifetime. With the founding of official schools of philosophy – the Academy, the Lyceum, the Garden of Epicurus, the Zenonian Stoa – and with less formally organized philosophical movements, especially the Cynics... Anyway, if I recall correctly, I have read about this issue in other works, more explicitly, so I will try to locate and cite it. --->I added another page from Guthrie and two pages from Ahbel-Rappe 2011 [78].
  • "He was considered to be the man who moved philosophy from a study of the natural world, as was the case for pre-Socratic philosophers, to a study of humanity." The way this is phrased suggests that, after Socrates, philosophy was solely the "study of humanity", which isn't the case (see philosophy of science). The source says "Socrates, who succeeded them [the "original philosophers"] much later, said that … what was most useful was investigation of how best to conduct one’s life, avoid bad things and get the greatest possible share of fine things."
    • Correct, I watered it down.[79]
  • "The Socratic priority of eudaimonia was accepted among all his successors …" I see almost none of the following two sentences in the source (Guthrie pp 165–66).
    • Correct, I removed the phrase and slightly rephrased. [80]
  • "For Parmenides, only one thing existed and that was the "good" Socrates was searching for; Euclid continued Socrates's thought." This sentence is very confusing. I assume "Parmenides" should be "Euclid" or "Euclid, following Parmenides"?
    • I rephrased (radically) [81]
  • "It is clear, however, that their impact reached Cicero." Why is Cicero relevant here? The next paragraph is about Stoicism—is that the connection?
    • Correct. Removed [82]
  • "Their moral doctrines focused on how to live a smooth life through wisdom and virtue, giving a crucial role to virtue for happiness and the relation between goodness and ethical excellence, all of which echoed Socratic thought." I get the general idea here but this sentence is pretty unclear. Is the idea that virtue is important to attain happiness (i.e., I assume, eudaimonia)?
    • Yes, I added the word attain. [83] I do not know how to improve it further...
  • "At the same time, the philosophical current of Platonism claimed Socrates as its predecessor …" I would be hesitant to identify Platonism with academic skepticism—the claim that skepticism is Platonistic would require more sourcing. I take it what we're dealing with here is the views of people at Plato's Academy, which needn't be Platonistic views.
    • Hm..I get your point. It was not my intention to say that skepticism is platonistic, but academic skepticism was a feature of Plato's Academy. I think it is not a controversial opinion. But to avoid confusion, I removed the specific word. [84]
  • It looks like there is a confusion of "Lane" and "Ober". The contributors to the Cambridge Companion are Melissa Lane and Josiah Ober. The article lists Josiah Ober and Josiah Lane, both as authors of the chapter "Socrates and Democratic Athens". I hope this is a quick fix (presumably just changing the citation to "Josiah Lane" to read "Melissa Lane" and changing the relevant chapter to "Reconsidering Socratic Irony" (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.011).
  • "Also, his Socratic ignorance did not resonate well with their criteria of truths." I don't understand this sentence.
    • Indeed confusing and I think it is a little too much of a detail, their attack to Socratic epistemology. Out of scope of an encyclopedic article. Removed [86]
  • "perhaps because of the resemblance in this regard with Muhammad's life" This is not in the pages cited of the Alon chapter.
    • P 318 says ... This combination might have struck a chord by its similarity to the Prophet’s personality... I have changed the text to represent the source in a better way[87]
  • "In medieval times, little of Socrates's thought survived in the Christian world as a whole; however, works on Socrates from Christian scholars such as Lactantius, Eusebius and Augustine were maintained in the Byzantine Empire, where Socrates was studied under a strong Christian lens." Neither Lactantius, Eusebius, nor Augustine are mentioned in Tazio's article. The claim about a "strong Christian lens" is probably fair, but the other bits need sourcing.
    • I removed the word "strong" and provided another source for other names. [88]
  • "Also, Hegel sees the Socratic use of rationalism as a continuation of Protagoras' subjectivism …" Can you explain this some more?
    • Yes, hope this is better [89]
  • "Hegel did not see the Socratic method as maieutic …" I assume "maieutic" is a technical term for Hegel—what does it mean?
    • I removed the sentence.[90] After looking it again and again, it seems it is not a proper summary, the text of the source is more like a view on how Hegel compared Socrates to Sophists. Interesting but out of the scope of the article.
  • "at a later stage, Kierkegaard's view on him as a pure ironist shifted, and he found ethical elements in Socratic thought" I don't see this in the page cited.
    • Correct, removed [91] I think ve read about it though somewhere, but cant locate it.
  • Is "Socrates in popular culture" really necessary? It reads like trivia at the moment and I don't see much encyclopedic value. Readers are presumably aware that Socrates is well known as a figure.
    • Removed [92] You are prob right.

Overall

edit

As a whole, checking the article against the GA criteria:

  • Well written
    • Aside from a few confusing sentences that I've flagged, it's good on MOS compliance and general readability.
  • Verifiable with no original research
    • This has been my biggest concern. The vast majority of the bits I've flagged above have been statements that don't correspond directly to the sources cited. Assuming that those concerns have been addressed (I haven't yet gone back to check on your replies), though, this—which I see as the biggest hurdle—should be good.
  • Broad in its coverage
    • Certainly. You've taken a massive topic and done an admirable job of picking a good selection of key areas to summarize.
  • Neutral
    • Apart from a few places where Socrates seems overpraised, which I think we've both addressed throughout this review, I think the article is neutral.
  • Stable
    • Yes.
  • Illustrated
    • Yes (excellently).

Overall, we're quite close to GA status. This is a mammoth piece of work and you should be very proud. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of the closure of this GA Assessment, thanks for your nice words, your copy-editing, your through-out review, paying attention to details and ultimately improving the article! Wikipedia wins! Cinadon36 12:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • In order to keep continuity, could I suggest that Template:Socrates be added to the top of the Sources and the Socratic problem section in place of the statue? These kinds of templates get re-added over time anyways, so it might be better to get ahead of that, rather than have a random editor come along every few months and put it somewhere that messes up the article formatting. Aza24 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Passing

edit

I have two remaining questions which you and I can address at some point in the future. They're listed below; I copied the whole of each thread for ease of references. Given that the vast majority of issues I noted have been resolved, and in the spirit of WP:IAR, I'm passing this now. The two remaining questions/comments are as follows.

  • "The implications of this puzzle lead to the rejection of the traditional Greek theology, since the Homeric gods fought against each other." First, it's not clear that a puzzle itself can have implications—it only starts to have implications when you pick a side in the Euthyphro dilemma. Second, how exactly is Greek theology challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma? And third, why does this challenge lead us to reject Greek theology?
    • I rephrased, I hope the answer to the questions are clearer now. [93]
      • What is the relevance of the eye for an eye principle to the Euthyphro dilemma? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
        • As I see it, Euthyphro dilemma hints that Goodness is irrelevant of God(s) and since Gods acts are sometimes profoundly not-good, that highlights an inconsistency in the general religious narrative of the time that was employing the eye for an eye principle, among others. Socrates with Euthyphro dilemma says/hints that we should never do evil acts, even for revenge.
  • "Socrates's theory of virtue states that all virtues are essentially one, since they are a form of knowledge." The logical connection between the virtues being one and being a form of knowledge is not clear. This whole paragraph is pretty hard to follow. Also, isn't the "unity of virtue" theory typically imputed to Plato, not Socrates? (Genuine question.)
    • Plato had a distinct theory of virtue. See for example Rowe 2006, who is quoting a paper by Cooper 1984: Everyone knows that in the Republic Plato advances the theory that the soul has three independent parts: reason, spirit and appetite, as they are usually called in English. Using this theory he constructs an account of the human virtues: each of the three parts of the soul has its own special role to play in a human being’s life, and virtue, for us, consists in each of them playing its own role fully and in harmony with the others. Thus human virtue taken as a whole, according to the Republic, is a complex interrelationship among three separate psychological elements, each of which has its own indispensable contribution to make. Now this theory of virtue contrasts sharply with the Socratic theory found, for example, in the Protagoras.2 According to the Socratic theory virtue is essentially a property of the intellect (and never mind what other parts of the soul there may be). That Plato in the Republic is self-consciously rejecting this Socratic theory is by now well accepted; and most philosophical readers no doubt agree that the Republic’s theory is a distinct improvement.... Anyway, I will try to fix that paragraph, there are some weak points there. ---->hopefully, this is an improvement [94]

All good on both; I think my brain wasn't quite working. On a second look they make sense to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socrates/GA2&oldid=1187309928"