![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
We need a summary on Plato's accounts of eros as a pathway to knowledge and his horizons and constraints on families and sexuality in the Republic and the Laws. I can forward my notes on this subject to any interested party. Larvatus 20:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
This certainly looks like it should be a featured article. Any objection to my nominating it? Rick Norwood 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Confucius for discussion of "see also" section. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Plato had a strong distaste for poetry, would anyone care to write a section about this with me? Thanks, GChriss 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there are arguably some 'poetic' elements in the dialogues themselves. Socrates is sometimes compared to Odysseus (esp. Symposium) as well as quotations from the Odyssey and Iliad and Hesiod's works being included in the dialogues. In any case, it is not an easy issue and I don't it deserves a kind of capsule summarization to the effect of 'Plato did not like poets'. There is even a link at the bottom of the wiki article to the SED article "Rhetoric and Poetry" by Charles Griswold that strongly argues for a more complicated relationship than mere antagonism between philosophy and poetry: "Plato's remarkable philosophical rhetoric incorporates elements of poetry. Most obviously, his dialogues are dramas with several formal features in common with much tragedy and comedy (for example, the use of authorial irony, the importance of plot, setting, the role of individual character and the interplay between dramatis personae). No character called “Plato” ever says a word in his texts. His works also narrate a number of myths, and sparkle with imagery, simile, allegory, and snatches of meter and rhyme. Indeed, as he sets out the city in speech in the Republic, Socrates calls himself a myth teller (376d9-10, 501e4-5)..." Of course, this also goes back to the (not so innocent and contestable) assumption of taking Socrates to be Plato's mouthpiece for his 'mature philosophy' in his 'Middle Dialogues'. EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be mentioned that his real name was Aristocles as he was nicknamed Plato after his 'Broad Shoulders' not forehead. Platon meaning broad.
Do we have anything solid that tells us why he was called Plato? I'd be very interested. Another interpretation I heard was that he was called broad because of his wide knowledge - a little too retrospective perhaps. Dast 12:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In that day and age they did respect plato for his philosophy and knowledge which helped shape governments but they wouldn't of named im broad just by his exeptional knowledge and for his size, but if plato was a common name then that was probably his nickname, but it could also be a nickname given later generations, after all confucious had his name changed from Kong Zi, also in that time it was normal to say the entire name so a nickname may have been a tad odd, but students have been known to create nicknames, Damien Blackwell
The article is still in pretty poor shape, I even found typos right at the beginning. The discussion on the commentarists is rather poor and unscholarly; surely the latest currents of interpretation such as that of the Tuebingen school (Reale etc.) need to be discussed, as much as their opposer's (Brisson et. al). A deeper entry on Plato and Pythagoreanism is also needed. Recommended works would be Brazil's Mário Ferreira dos Santos, Burkert's classic Weisheit und Wissenschaft and his pupil's, Christoph Riedweg, recent book on Pythagoras. In following Burkert, that last title on Philolaos would also be of help. and many others. Less specialized interpretations, not as kitsch as Einstein's and such, say, that of Strauss or Bernardette's, would be nice, since they've had large followings. I may end up writing all of that, if I have the time.
I do think that the article could use a bit more work as well. It only seems to focus on the more orthodox interpretation of Plato that is prominent in the US and Britain and ignores the Tubingen, Romantic, and Straussian interpretations of Plato. For example, some commentators (Leo Strauss and his followers) would believe it is a mistake to take Socrates as the mouthpiece for Plato's 'philosophy'. They cite how Socrates often makes errors in his argumentation and often contradicts himself between dialogues. (ex. In the Phaedrus, Socrates refers to Eros as a god, whereas in the Symposium Eros is a daimon. Also, many of the details on the dotrine of ideas are contradictory. In the Phaedrus they are hyperuranian beings, whereas in the Symposium Socrates refers to "Beauty Itself" and does not use the words 'eidos' or 'idea' in connection with his discussion on beauty. Lastly, there is a notable logical error that Socrates makes near the end of the Protagoras.) While some scholars attribute these faults to Plato's own inadequacies (the contradictions are explained as part of Plato's development and the logical errors are excused by citing how Plato did not have access to developments that occurred later in the history of philosophy), some Straussian scholars (and I believe Tubingen as well) would cite that Plato had esoteric teachings and that (according to Straussians) Socrates' teachings in the dialogues are merely exoteric. The contradictions and logical errors are interpreted as a means for Plato to communicate to more privileged readers that more investigation [into the dialogues] is needed. Also, they propose that the dialogue should be interpreted as a whole (including its more 'literary' elements: the dramatic setting, interpretation of the myths, Socrates' use of rhetoric and considerations of his audience, etc.)
EmileNoldeSinclair
12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not wish to suggest that the Straussians can lay an exclusive claim for proposing that Plato had esoteric teachings (though I'm not sure which schools of interpretation claim that the esoteric teachings are hidden in the dialogues). I merely did not wish to make claims about other interpretations that I could not back up with any hard textual evidence. I have not given due attention to the Tubingen or Romantic interpretations (though I believe that the Tubingen does claim that there is an esoteric teaching?) Also, I don't have any familiarity with Luc Brisson or his interpretation. I suppose I should come clean I state that I am a mere undergraduate who has studied under Prof. Stanley Rosen, a former student of Strauss. In any case, I'm interested to see what you have to say about Mr. Brisson should you contribute to the article.
I strongly take objection to the claims (seemingly presented as unbiased) in the section "Form and Content" which rather problematically states (without qualification) that "In the middle dialogues, Socrates becomes a mouthpiece for Plato's own philosophy..." as well as the claim that "The late dialogues read more like treatises..." These claims do not at all fall in line with the view that the dialogues are primarily dramas, and that Plato pursued the dialogue form precisely to avoid the limitations of treatises. Why is it the Plato never speaks directly to his audience? Why does he not simply include a character with the name 'Plato' in his dialogues instead of going the roundabout way and (supposedly) using Socrates as a mouthpiece?
Moreover, I don't think this statement can be left as stands: "Plato also had a position on the art of writing as opposed to oral communication. This is evidenced in his Phaedrus1 dialogue and his Seventh Epistle.2 He said that oral communication is superior to the written word, especially in the accuracy of the oral word over the written word and in his Seventh Epistle that nothing of importance should be written down but transmitted orally." Taken at face value, this makes Plato look rather incompetent as a philosopher, since his dialogues are writings. However scholars have proposed that Plato may have actually believed his dialogues to escape Socrates' criticism of writing in the Phaedrus, that Plato chose the dialogue form because it is better able to cope with the limitations of writing than the treatise. This view is even put forth in the linked SEP article "Rhetoric and Poetry" by Charles Griswold (another professor I've studied under, also a former student of Prof. Stanley Rosen). Moreover, it has also been suggested by some scholars that the content of the Epistles may also be ironic.
Personally, I think that the assumption of an esoteric teaching within the dialogue (even as a purely methodological assumption) in interpreting Plato leads to a much richer interpretation than anything that has been suggested in the current state of the Wiki article. Plato is my favorite philosopher, and I was quite dismayed to see that other schools of interpretation (even ones that I was less familiar with) are currently not being fairly represented. IMHO, the Plato depicted currently in the wiki article is a relatively shallow, boring, and uninteresting philosophical figure. Of course, that sort of commentary is not exactly appropriate for a wiki article...
Also, I propose at least a brief mention of Gadamer's work as well as Derrida's notable commentary on the Phaedrus...(perhaps also a bit more in depth summary of Schleiermacher's interpretations?)
Another consideration introduced by other interpretations that I think is worth mentioning is the question of just how much Plato's philosophy and Platonism can be identified (the wiki article seems to suggest they are virtually identical; in light of other interpretive possibilities, I think it should at least be mentioned that it has been contested). One last point that I'll state explicitly (though just as much can be gathered from my prior comments) is that the putative chronological ordering of the dialogues should be presented just as such - as being in some cases engendered by speculation, and that scholars have contested the possibility of such a rigid ordering (though some dialogues undoubtedly do have some connections...perhaps more on this later...)
EmileNoldeSinclair
12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The only real secondary material that I'm in any position to say I'm an authority on is Stanley Rosen's commentary on the Symposium, esp. since I've taken a class taught by him. Of course, in about year's time I may be prepared to do the necessary work I've suggested as I plan to do independent study under Prof. Griswold on the Phaedrus. In the process, I may plan to acquire a general familiarity with the heavy hitters in the secondary material (Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Heidegger, Strauss, Derrida, Cherniss, Vlastos, Kramer, etc.) In the event that I do so, I'll be sure to get to the nitty gritty of properly representing the differing interpretations.
EmileNoldeSinclair
05:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
On this topic -'Expansion Needed'- I have a suggestion for the Biography section. The concluding paragraph mentions that Plato was influenced by the Pythagoreans, Anaxagoras, and Parmenides; I think Heraclitus should be added to that list. Much of Plato's opinion of the sublunary world seems to be Heraclitean in derivation. Aristotle himself says that: "the supporters of the ideal theory were led to it because on the question about the truth of things they accepted the Heraclitean sayings which describe all sensible things as ever passing away, so that if knowledge or thought is to have an object, there must be some other and permanent entities, apart from those which are sensible; for there could be no knowledge of things which were in a state of flux." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book M 1078b. I am citing the W.D. Ross translation. Also see Metaphysics, Book A, 987b, in this regard.) If it is feared that citing Heraclitus as an influence of Plato might be confusing briefly state that this influence only extended to the visible material world. Joe Pomonomo2003 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
All references to "we" and "us" in this article should be reworded so as to avoid self-reference. - Silence 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"The Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato—nor the knowledge of Greek needed to read them." This flatly contradicts the node on Medieval philosophy as Neoplatonism was clearly a major element of philosophy of medieval times. This article makes it sound as though platonism only resurfaced during the Renaissance when in fact, it was wide-spread before Aquinas brought Aristotle into the Catholic mainstream.
Thanks for a good copy edit, Mel. Rick Norwood 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to explain the dreaeery and depressing saga behind Sgrayban's comment: an editor followed our instructions at Wikipedia:External links, and instead of spamming articles with links to his site, added them to Talk pages. A couple of admins immediately jumped on him, threatening him with being blocked for link-spamming (he was in fact blocked, though it was quickly lifted), and removing all the comments that he'd left at talk pages before other editors could see and assess them.
The site is very poor quality, and I hope that none of the links would have been added to articles — but I protested that it was wrong to treat him like that for doing what our own guidelines said that he should. I reinstated his comments, and took it to WP:AN/I. What was really depressing was the number of editors, including admins, who joined in the incivility (to put it mildly) and slogan-shouting ("spam is spam", down with Googlebombing", etc.). Sgrayban was involved in the original harrassment of the editor, and has been one of the most hysterical members of the chorus, accusing me of wanting spam in Wikipedia, and other absurdities.
Not very edifying, but I thought you should know. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from the article: "Another key distinction and theme in the Platonic corpus is the dichotomy between knowledge and opinion, which foreshadow modern debates between David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and has been taken up by postmodernists and their opponents, more commonly as the distinction between the objective and the subjective."
Surely the distinction between knowledge and belief has been accepted and explored by the vast majority of philosophers since Plato. I'm not sure why Hume, Kant, and Postmodernists get a special mention. I am sure, however, that the distinction between the objective and subjective is, while potentially related, a very different philosophical issue and one, furthermore, which does not enter Plato's work (at least in a way resembling post-enlightenment debates). Or have I missed something? Dast 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be good forget P's ideas and get a better picture of P's personality, social status, &etc and only then review his ideas. -Good luck on that, afraid there weren't too many biographers around at the time. Hypotyposis 03:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The section is much too short.It deals with Platon's greatest work and it doesn't manage to summarize correctly its concept. Also i would like to suggest this:
This refers to the Guardians of the city,who can hardly be described as reckless-"adventurous,in love with danger"-and are the military and city watch of the city.It is widely known that the military forces of ancient greece were made up of the "phalanx",which was an organised,well-disciplined unit that greatly depended on team-work and not on the single person.It was the primary reason for the success of the greek armies on defeating rival nations.Platon would certainly conceive the Guardians of the city under this fashion. This is pictured in the society of the Guardians.Furthermore,the Guardians received the best education in the city, and it is from their ranks that the Philosopher-Kings came. Evenmore,"θυμοειδές" should'nt be translated as "spirit".It means the will of a human being, the part of the soul which is connected with acting in itself,unlike "επιθυμιτικό" kai "λογίκο", which govern the "willing" part of the soul, to fullfill their purposes. So I suggest this
Any suggestion about a better term than "willing" is welcome.
{{unsigned2|13:25, June 21, 2006|213.16.150.185
willing = obligato "An accompaniment that is an indispensable part of a piece" Kisida 09:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Upon what ground, precisely, do we hold that Plato's works can be divided into "early" and "late." Surely we do not wish to suggest to the reader that there is no controversy on this matter or that a chronology might be established at all. We are told by at least one contemporary source that Plato revised his works repeatedly throughout his life. If we believe that we might analyze the dialogues and reveal some sort of development, we might be guilty of hacking down the forest to count the rings of the trees. I would suggest that Plato is smart enough to elude such analysis.
Jrbennett 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for the 'not in Tetralogies' list? Am I mistaken to think that one or more edition of the Republic had the subtitle, "On Justice"? Is it known when this subtitle added? Is there any scholarly debate on this issue? Zeusnoos 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
On what basis is it said in the article that Plato was born in May or December? I know there is a controversy on what year he was born in (see Debra Nails, The People of Plato). I didn't know that anyone was more certain of the month in which he was born, especially given the fact that ancient Greeks generally didn't observe birthdays. Isokrates 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I heard on the TV he was. Is that right?-- Light current 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I say this because there is apparently a gay bath house in NY or somwhere called Plato's
Maybe Plato is the freed prisoner returning back to Earth (cave) knowing what we still question, whats oblique become's obvios. Kisida 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that putting Plato in an anti-atheism category is indeed strange and misleeding, it's not true that there was no such thing as atheism in his day. Diagoras of Melos, for example, was an atheist; and being an atheist was a capital crime (one which Socrates, among others, was charged and tried for). -- D. Webb 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power....."
"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....."
"No one ever dies an atheist....." -- Philo 13:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the link to the article entitled "Are there really Platonic forms?": I'm not sure I can vouch for its merits. It strikes me as an amateurish critique of Plato: amateurish because it makes far too many interpretive errors (ex. is it the case that Plato has a true theory of forms? The highest genera of the Sophist differ substantially from "beauty itself" in the Symposium, to say nothing of the hyperuranian beings in the Phaedrus. Moreover, Plato's doctrine of ideas should not be considered a theory proper: when do Plato's characters in the dialogues give anything other than a metaphorical description of the forms? How do they 'particpate'? These questions are left unclear [not, I think, to the detriment of the author]. Lastly, Mr. Whitehead believes Plato's forms can be rather unproblematically understood through a crash course in set theory. Is this true? It strikes me as completely alien to the dialogues. Where's the evidence for this interpretation?) I don't think the article does any justice to Plato since it gives a rather unsophisticated critique of him and we find that Wittgenstein and Kant are the author's true philosophical heroes. It criticizes "Platonism" but not Plato. I don't believe it will suffice for the student of Plato. When I try to find to research Mr. Whitehead's credentials, I can't find anything of the sort. I suppose my complaint is that I would expect a certain degree of academic rigour to the materials that are linked to the article and not just any links one can find on the internet. Otherwise, I don't see why I couldn't put up my own essays concerning the matter on a website and have them linked to the wiki article. Perhaps I've misunderstood the protocols regarding the construction of wiki articles; in any case, any thoughts? EmileNoldeSinclair 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion that I put up my own articles was ironic; I was merely stating my belief that I could do a better job at writing an article on Plato than the author of the link. I do however believe that the Stanford Encyclopedia article links are rather decent and helpful for the prospective student of Plato. EmileNoldeSinclair 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
On a side note, here is the url for a rather interesting link on both Plato and Strauss: http://college.holycross.edu/diotima/n1v2/rosen.htm Stanley Rosen is a former student of Strauss who has also spent many of his years carefully studying Plato's dialogues: he has written on the Symposium, the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Republic, as well other shorter articles and chapters in various other books (including discussions of the Phaedrus [Hermeneutics as Politics], Phaedo [The Question of Being], and Parmenides [Plato's Symposium]). EmileNoldeSinclair 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that under the pillow of Plato's deathbed was a volume of Aristophanes, as Nietzsche wrote?
-- 24.131.209.132 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I note that this article is rated as both "GA" and "A" according to the assessments above. This disagreement is troubling. Badbilltucker 16:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason I failed Plato as a good article is a distinct lack of inline citations (there are a few however, but none that point to references). My advice is to give book page numbers which makes it a lot easier to verify the information being presented. I felt could not be done in a week since it's a fairly long article. See the GAs on other thinkers for more tips. I'll be happy to rereview when this has been addressed. Otherwise, it's a good article CloudNine 19:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
"Such was his learning and ability that the ancient Greeks declared him to be the son of Apollo and told how, in his infancy, bees had settled on his lips, as prophecy of the honeyed words which were to flow from them."
Should this, "Atheism and free speech in Athens" section be moved to the article on The Trial of Socrates? It would be nice if this article were mostly about Plato.
Furthermore, the central idea a person gets reading that paragraph is that "Socrates was charged with atheism," and that the Trial of Socrates was largely the persecution of an atheist. But Socrates was no atheist and the charges seem more akin to our idea of heresy, impiety, and corruption of minors.
Speedphrak
04:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel Confucius should be mentioned, like a sub-header or something
I think there should be a headline for the 'life of Platon' somewhere on this article...when I came to this page it was the first thing I looked for.
It seems to me that the whole section, the way it now stands, is POV. The fact of the matter is that Platos attitude towards women is much more complicated and it is debated exactly what his views are. The section, if it is to be included, needs to take account of the actual scholarly debate about Plato's views on women and present each side fairly. To my knowledge, Julia Annas has presented the best argument against reading Plato as a feminist (but her views are not those that are now included in the section). Others have responded to Annas. This should be taken account of. And even if it didn't find its way into the article, it is just plain weird to have a section on Plato's views on women and not mention women in the Republic (which Annas has a lot to say about in fact, but also those who disagree with her). -- D. Webb 19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The addition ventures nary a word on PLATO'S views on women. All I'm doing here is pointing out the two times that the character SOCRATES claims to have been tutored by a female and to be delivering a speech based on her teachings. (I will add, at your prompting, that Socrates recommeds in the Republic that women exercise naked along with the men because they shall be "clad in virtue".) Plato's personal views are a matter of speculation, and cannot be simply conflated with the words of Socrates. What I've added here is simply the facts of the two speeches. Menexenus is thought to be a satire. Brenda maverick 20:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not wish to do this because the page on Socrates, as far as I am concerned, is pure invention, and has no basis in either history or literature. It is the great writer Plato who concerns me. And won't you pounce on me there, or anywhere I go?!
Brenda maverick
21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Brenda maverick 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)