Talk:Plato

Dead Link

The link to note 83 is dead. The Youtube account that it links to has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.99.204 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Plato's Real Name

Plato was not his real name, that is a nickname. His real name was Aristocles, he was named after his grandfather. http://plato-dialogues.org/faq/faq005.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.4 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC) nope, read the archives. this has been addressed.178.25.216.52 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Plato was a vegetarian

Plato is famously known for being vegetarian just as Aristotle was. He wrote about this philosophy, it was a lifestyle choice and it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBubblyBaboon (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC) It could be referenced alongside mention of The Myth Of Er, within which Plato notes that the transmigration of souls occurs between human and animal bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBBoy12345 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Plato a defender of slavery?

Plato is a member of the "Defenders of slavery" category. Does he belong there? Pollinosisss (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

He most certainly does not... he explicitly sides against enslaving fellow greeks in the republic although opens the possibility for enslaving foreigners. This seems more a product of the time in the book and his rejection of enslaving other greeks seems to be the major point he makes on the topic and as such any reference to Plato as a supporter of slavery seems wrong - thepossumdance

Plato has since been removed from the category. It didn't make any sense for him to be there. Pollinosisss (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan was of the opinion that Plato and Pythagoreans advocated a mind/body separation in order to justify slavery (your mind is free, not body), see COSMOS, Episode 7, "The Backbone of Night" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_966RzTF6k#t=4m42s 203.97.255.148 (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and say that Carl Sagan is not a reliable source on Plato. Or, if that is too harsh, I will say that his views on ancient Greek philosophy are so far outside of the mainstream that he falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

??!! although opens the possibility for enslaving foreigners.??!! how about sounds like an defense of slavery to me. so if I am only for the enslavement of Mexicans but vehemently against it for Ecuadorans I can a defender of freedom. according to Plato there are slaves in the "Ideal" world. Republic [433d] "that resides in the guardians, or whether this is the chief cause of its goodness, the principle embodied in child, woman, slave, free, artisan, ruler, and ruled, that each performed his one task as one man and was not a versatile busybody." put him back in the defenders camp. -The lesser Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.100.166 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

We should edit the footnotes of this article to include all of western philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.182.105 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links to Audio

ejunto.org has high quality audio recordings (English) of Plato's Republic and The Apology. The LibriVox recordings are listed so would it be a problem if I added a link to The Republic? http://ejunto.org/Listen/TitlePage.aspx?TitleId=4 Beaster77 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic Genealogy

This section seems out of place to me. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

plato or socrates

I've been reading this entry and it seems that large parts of the Philosophy section attribute thoughts to Socrates that really should be attributed to Plato. I don't know the subject well enough to correct it, but perhaps someone else does... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.46.115 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the body of this article about Socrates and not about Plato? What are Plato's views on the issues discussed here? This is a bad article at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.92.97.111 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

could just be vandalism from some philosophy undergrad student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.110.90 (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. Someone fix this. I would, but I can't. I've read only a paragraph and everywhere it should mention Plato it mentions Socratese. It appears this error has been around for the better part of 8 months. Time to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason no one is changing it is because it would be wrong to change it. Plato wrote dialogues in which Socrates was the main character. We cannot say that the Socratic character was Plato's mouthpiece, yet the dialogues are the only statements we have from Plato (the letters are mostly dubious). This is standard practice when discussing Plato's works. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Metaphysics portion is the same. It discusses primarily Socrates. To say that Socrates influenced Plato by his thoughts on xyz is acceptable. To say that 'Plato writes that Socrates said...' is maybe acceptable. To simply write 'Socrates said ABC...' without reference to how this influenced Plato, or what Plato's reaction was makes this inclusion irrelevant to a discussion of Plato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re34646 (talk • contribs) 14:43, December 14, 2011‎

To say that "Socrates says X" might be problematic, but the section on metaphysics notes that it is discussing what the character Socrates says in the Republic. Having said it once, it would be awkward to repeat "the Platonic Socrates" or "Plato makes Socrates say" or "in the Republic, the character Socrates (who may or may not correspond to the historical Socrates)," etc. I think the context supplies the supposed defect in this case. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

name and citizenship

There seem to be two details missing.

1) wasn't Platos real name Aristokles (Prof. Willy Ley).

2) Under classical Greek law didn't a man have to serve some sort of military service before he could be awarded citizenship.

As Socrates had a distinguished military career no doubts there but there doesn't seem to be any mention of Plato having done so although according to his works he was very keen on what would now be caalled National Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.155 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plato's "real name" is largely discredited, as we don't find any attestations to that effect until several centuries later, by which point myth had begun to take over the biographies written of him. Also, there was no classical Greek law regarding citizenship: each city was independent, and a man who would be a citizen in one city would not be one in another. One was born a citizen in Athens. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the Theory of Forms section

The second to last link in the Theory of Forms section is supposed to say 'properties' but it includes the word that follows, making the link read 'propertieswe'. I would change it myself, but I am new and I don't have a confirmed account with which to edit this locked article. MrMcCarthy (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Done RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another typo: in the 5th para of the Composition of Dialogues section, 'stylometric' is spelled 'stylometic' 180.149.62.52 (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Y Done RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Plato motto: "God is ever a geometer"

In researching the history of Greek gematria - the alphanumeric quality of a language - we are pointed to Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans, and Plato. There is an ancient Greek motto: "God is ever a geometer" (ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ μέγας γεωμετρεῖ), whereas, counting the letters of the words (3,1,4,1,5,9) reveals the first six digits of pi (3.14159). This confirms that 'Step 1' of Greek gematria is simply counting the number of letters in a word/name and that 'Step 2' is the gematric sum of a word/name. There's a question of whether "God is ever a geometer" is rightfully accredited to Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans, or to Plato?

- Brad Watson, Miami, FL 65.34.180.54 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Decimal notation was unknown to the Greeks. And ἀεὶ is also spelled ἀὶ and ἀιεὶ. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that "Decimal notation was unknown to the Greeks" and our current global numerical system (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) was also unknown to the ancient Greeks. However, they used the first 10 Greek letters to represent 1-10 and the next 10 letters as 20-100, so they were definitely using a base-10 numerical system and were using fractions. The Greek scribes at the time of Plato were also using gematria and had also discovered pi to be 3.14159. So, I correctly stated that Plato encoded 3.14159 with (the Greek) "God is ever a geometer". - Brad Watson, Miami, FL64.136.26.230 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a talk page is not the place to discuss something like this. Because of WP:NOR and WP:V, and some related guidelines that expand upon those policies, your theories cannot be put into the article. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've actually given this more thought than I should have, having discovered some web pages to the same effect and wondered if it could be true. Alas, it is not. The actual quotation from Plato (via Plutarch) can be found here: τὸν θεὸν ἀεὶ γεωμετρεῖν or [ἀεὶ] γεωμετρεῖν τὸν θεὸν. Even returning this to direct speech, we don't have all the words, nor are they in the right order. Some modern Greek schoolteacher probably made up that mnemonic, which would explain why other versions have even more decimals represented, e.g., Ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὀ Μέγας γεωμετρεῖ, τὸ κύκλου μῆκος ἵνα ὁρίσῃ διαμέτρῳ, παρήγαγεν ἀριθμὸν ἀπέραντον, καὶ ὅν, φεῦ, οὐδέποτε ὅλον θνητοὶ θὰ εὕρωσι; see piphilology. I would be surprised to find if the phrase as you quote it were older than the nineteenth century. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dividing into early, middle, and late dialogues

The introduction to the division of Plato's dialogues into early, middle, and late states that there is much disagreement on the subject, that only two periods can be proven conclusively, and that many scholars doubt that the dialogues can be dated at all. Yet the article goes on to present a division into time periods as authoritative (qualified only by the statement that is is just one commonly held view), mirrored in the template Template:Dialogues of Plato. This seems to run afoul of WP:NPOV (especially as regards the template, where the division is simply presented as fact without explanation). Given this, I think the extent to which this division is discussed should be scaled back and the template organized along some other lines. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -Pollinosisss (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubt over the early-middle-late division waxes and wanes in scholarship, but nonetheless the division is almost always assumed in the vast majority of books and articles (perhaps with an excusing footnote) on Plato. The debate about its merit usually occurs in a small number of articles considering the specific topic of Plato's chronology. In any case, the early-middle-late division has been so prevalent over the years that these divisions have become ubiquitous place-markers for collections of Plato's dialogues, whether or not one thinks these collections pick out distinct chronological groups, distinct philosophical groups, or nothing distinct at all. E.g. authors write on what they call the 'early dialogues' or 'late Plato' so it's very hard to avoid talking about 'such-and-such's view of the early dialogues', even if one doubts that 'early' picks out anything special. The article, then, just reflects a messy part of Platonic scholarship and I'd say it's best leave it as it is. Otherwise Wikipedia would be the only introduction to Plato that I know of that doesn't use this division, which might itself make it run afoul of NPOV. --Dast (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting removing it from the article entirely, just scaling it back. It was the template that I suggested removing it from entirely. The consensus may wax and wane, but it seems to be in the wane stage right now. I will also say that I haven't seen this division repeated in political science journals, so they're not that ubiquitous. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the early/middle/late division is entirely absent from poli sci journals, although it may be mentioned less often because poli sci doesn't often deal with later dialogues like Statesman and Laws. In classics and ancient philosophy the chronology of the dialogues is a basic part of discussion about Plato. "scaling back" the discussion in this article might be feasible—simply converting the lists to prose might help in terms of style and readability. I wouldn't support changing the template, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wincenty Lutoslawski

Why there's nothing here about Lutoslawski, and putting Plato's works in chronological order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.144.116 (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Platonav

Template:Platonav has been nominated for merging with Template:Platonism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Plato as an anti-empiricist.

I have trouble accepting statements to the effect that Plato helped lay the foundation for western science: Western science is founded on empirical inquiry, something which Plato explicitly rejects. 89.204.253.121 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but western science is more than empiricism. Before one can say that empirical observations are the only way to gain knowledge about the world, one must already have established a kind of moral permission for intellectual skepticism. Plato was not the first to question things, but he did popularize the permissibility of philosophy like no one else. And to be fair, Plato rejects materialism; he does not say that one cannot learn about observable phenomena by observation, only that the most important things are not composed of atoms (ideas, for example). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant that Plato certainly managed to 'popularise' a particular brand of philosophy like no-one else, but the specific ideas he promoted within that philosophy arguably did more to hinder the course of western science than to advance it. Yes, science is more than empiricism: there's also the method of controlled experiment, occam's razor, falsifiability, etc.- none of which are concepts that Plato particularly helped to promote. I would also argue that Plato's belief in promulgating 'noble lies'- politically convenient fictions intended for the unwashed masses to swallow unquestioningly- is hardly advancing the general cause of intellectual skepticism.

At any rate, I believe this would constitute a 'significant minority viewpoint'. For example, taken from Studies in Humanism By F. C. S. Schiller-

"Plato's Anti-empirical Bias leads to misconstruction of Protagoras and Heraclitus, and ultimately ruins Greek science."

"We must affirm, therefore, that Plato's anti-empirical bias renders him profoundly anti-scientific, and that his influence has always, openly or subtly, counter-acted and thwarted the scientific impulse, or at least diverted it into unprofitable channels... ...And so, wherever this hypostasization and idolatry of concepts, and wherever these interpose between the mind and things, wherever they lead to disparagement of immediate experience, wherever the stubborn rigidity of prejudice refuses to adapt itself to the changes of reality, wherever the delusive answers of an a priori dialectics leave unanswered questions of inductive research, wherever words lure and delude, stupefy and paralyse, there Truth is sacrificed to Plato, even by barbarians who have never heard his name."

I would furthermore submit that this would count as a reliable source under general wikipedia guidelines, i.e, "magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". http://www.prometheusbooks.com/

You can search the text itself here: http://books.google.com/books?id=KL3sROAk2rwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Studies+in+Humanism+By+F.+C.+S.+Schiller&source=bl&ots=LU_iSSvrrO&sig=si8k2LZul2fjkQTT0Xw83aARDLk&hl=en&ei=ZRdjTIiUOYaT4ga02aXOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA

89.204.253.121 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. I didn't mean to suggest that your skepticism was misplaced, merely that the statement (which is also sourced) is not clearly mistaken. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

F.C.S. Schiller raises an important point, which is ultimately based on his own Aristotelian biases that have no place in an article on Plato. He claims that science is empirical. However, there is also theoretical, Platonic science. Knowledge in theoretical science arises from the logical relations between non-sensible fundamental concepts, and not from correlated but error-prone empirical instances. BlueMist (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

verbose opening

In the opening sentence, I would think it's sufficient to say that he was a "Greek philosopher and mathematician". The other achievements mentioned in the opening sentence aren't different enough from those two professions in order to list them separately. Owen214 (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

unlock

Unlock the page --93.82.5.49 (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Every time we unlock it, we get a flood of vandalism that disrupts constructive editing. This has happened for several years now, and so the decision was taken to recognize this as a high-visibility page and semi-protect it indefinitely. You may register for an account or post desired edits to this talk page. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy section confusingly written

It is not clear all the time whom "he" refers to (Plato or Socrates) and this can cause confusion. It makes the article look like it is constantly contradicting itself as it discusses Socrates before then in the next sentence using the word "he" to refer to Plato - can someone with edit rights please clarify this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.174 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Laurajennings, 28 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The allegory of the cave (often said by scholars to represent Plato's own epistemology and metaphysics) is intimately connected to his political ideology (often said to also be Plato's own), that only people who have climbed out of the cave and cast their eyes on a vision of goodness are fit to rule. Socrates claims that the enlightened men of society must be forced from their divine contemplations and BE compelled

Laurajennings (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Socrates Says?

In almost all the philosophy section, Plato is not mentioned, the article instead says, for example: " Socrates, in his allegory of the cave, says...". Is this a mistake, or it is talking about Socrates as a character in Plato writtings?--128.189.178.191 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter. Because Plato did not leave treatises and there is significant dispute in the literature about what Plato thought, it would be an WP:NPOV violation to attribute Socrates' statements to Plato. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Forerunner of eugenics?

Could an expert on Plato briefly look at the Eugenics page, where he is mentioned, without a source, as a forerunner of eugenics, and the first person to make calculations about human genetic inheritance. I suspect this may be taken from a book published in the first half of the 20th century, as an attempt to project eugenic thought back into history. I don't know whether current work on Plato's thought would interpret it in the same way. Many thanks if you are able to pop by. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest" (Rep. 5.459d) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NY Amateur (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Death

I can't seem to find any description of Plato's death in the article. It needs to be added. --188.183.61.228 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Significant new scholarship from Jay Kennedy

I just thought there should be some reference within the page to theories about codes within Plato's text. In particular, recent scholarship (widely reported) from Dr. Jay Kennedy (Univ. of Manchester) suggests a musical structure to the texts. See the following reference, for example: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=5894 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBBoy12345 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This research was widely reported in the popular press, has not taken Plato scholarship by storm, as far as I can tell--it's still very recent in academic terms. I'm not saying it's wrong, or a terrible idea, but until it starts playing a major role in studies of Plato, it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. JustinBlank (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dialectic

There doesn't seem to be anything about the "dialectic" which seems to be a strange ommission. Any comments from any of the editors of this page? Oxford73 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and ancient influence

The section headed "Criticism" contains only a few sentences from Carl Sagan. Out of all the many critics of Plato in the last 2300 years or so, is Carl Sagan really that important, or even qualified as a philosopher or historian? I could see if his criticisms were listed as part of a much larger section that included criticisms from other philosophers and figures through the era, but as it is it seems a little strange.

Also, the section on Platonic scholarship begins with the influence of Aristotle eclipsing that of Plato in the Middle Ages. The problem that I see with this is that it ignores the profound influence of Platonism in the ancient world, from Plutarch to Plotinus to the early Christians. Why no mention of his influence on the "Middle" Platonists and Neoplatonism? I'm certainly not an expert and I may be wrong, but everything that I've read on the subject has led me to believe that the influence of Plato on the thinkers of late antiquity vastly outstripped that of Aristotle. Volkodlak (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Carl Sagan. Of course, we're missing things because no one has added them yet. If you have some more material, be bold and add it. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol 1) wrote the most definitive critique of Plato. .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.116.202 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Popper's views on Plato are not taken seriously by scholars. If I recall correctly, he was removed some time ago per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 5432man, 7 June 2011 It should be included that Plato was a dramatist.

It should be included that Plato was a dramatist: he wrote Drama before becoming a disciple of Socrates, and the Dialogues are a dramatic form. A one-word addition ("dramatist") to the summary would improve it.

citation: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/> Second paragraph lines one through four.

Plato (English pronunciation: /ˈpleɪtoʊ/; Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn, "broad";[2] 428/427 BC[a] – 348/347 BC), was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, dramatist, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science.[3] In the famous words of A.N. Whitehead:

5432man (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The link above doesn't say Plato was a dramatist, and actually from the link they say:

But Plato's dialogues do not try to create a fictional world for the purposes of telling a story, as many literary dramas do; nor do they invoke an earlier mythical realm, like the creations of the great Greek tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

This seems like the opposite of your description as "dramatic form". Do you have a link to a reliable source stating that he wrote dramas or was a dramatist? — Bility (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I do recall an anecdote that sounds similar to the IP's claim, but I don't think it is enough to call Plato a dramatist. Allegedly, he tore up all his poetry upon becoming Socrates' pupil. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading Suggestion

Mark Blitz, Plato's Political Philosophy (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.209.186 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Justinian's closing of "Plato's Academy"

Regarding this below quote:

Plato may have traveled in Italy, Sicily, Egypt and Cyrene.[27] Said to have returned to Athens at the age of forty, Plato founded one of the earliest known organized schools in Western Civilization on a plot of land in the Grove of Hecademus or Academus.[28] The Academy was "a large enclosure of ground that was once the property of a citizen at Athens named Academus... some, however, say that it received its name from an ancient hero",[29] and it operated until AD 529, when it was closed by Justinian I of Byzantium, who saw it as a threat to the propagation of Christianity. Many intellectuals were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being Aristotle.[30]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that this was a Neoplatonic academy and that it was not running continuously from Plato's time up to 529 AD (and possibly also that there's some doubt about this event)? For more information, see the article Platonic_Academy#Neoplatonic_Academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abvgd (talk • contribs) 12:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle's remarks about Plato

Aristotle's remarks about Plato's philosophy are biased, and misleading, and should be removed from Plato articles.

“Aristotle attributes a different doctrine with respect to the ideas to Plato and Socrates (Metaphysics 987b1–11). Putting it in a nutshell, Aristotle merely suggests that his idea of forms can be discovered through investigation of the natural world, unlike Plato's Forms that exist beyond and outside the ordinary range of human understanding.”

Aside from the understandable misconception that "forms can be discovered through investigation of the natural world" (see gavagai), Aristotle's "suggestion" also seems to display ignorance of parts the Republic V-VII (Perhaps Plato added some portions in later editions?).

Plato specifies FOUR logically related models in the Republic 6:509D–513E, the Divided Line, not just the TWO that Aristotle turns upside-down and then incorporates into his own system. Plato's system is on a much grander scale than that of Aristotle. BlueMist (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I would object to the removal of Aristotle's remarks from the article. Wrong information is not removed just because it is wrong, especially when it is well-sourced that Aristotle said these things about Plato and his having said so does figure heavily in Platonic scholarship. Even attacks upon Aristotle's understanding of Plato show the importance of Aristotle to Platonic scholarship, to say nothing of the scholars who cite Aristotle in support of their interpretations of Plato. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, RJC. People who cite either Aristotle or later Aristotelians about Plato, or just about any subject, are always in the overwhelming majority. This presents a huge problem in philosophy for both Aristotle scholars and Plato scholars. A neutral point of view, which has gained preference in the past thirty years, must cautiously struggle against biased orthodoxy even in the academic community.

From a historical, or fact-collection perspective, I agree that both have valid claims to be included in any encyclopedia which is shaped by public opinion. When there is a conflict in content, so that current scholarly opinion can be squashed by the obsolete majority, decisions may need to made. Both should be given adequate exposure. However, I do agree that the votes of the admins is the best (Platonic) method to make decisions. I am merely lobbying for a clear separation of Plato from his critics, which I believe is most useful for both the readers and for Wikipedia. BlueMist (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Platonic Love

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The ideal and romantic, sexually unfulfielled, love is called in everyday speech Platonic love. And the nicest thing to Plato rebember love young people who do not even know his philosophy.93.137.57.159 (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Supprised there is no mention of Karl Popper and The Open Society and its Enemies Volume I: The Spell of Plato in the Criticism section. Popper would be a better representive of notable serious criticism than Carl Sagan. --24.44.148.66 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Popper used to be mentioned, but was removed per WP:FRINGE, as his criticism of Plato is not generally taken seriously (i.e., he is not considered to be a capable enough interpreter of Plato to be able to make worthwhile criticisms). Sagan is also probably not a good person to have, though. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/plato/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Editions

I created a section for Editions and included information on noteworthy or valuable historical and contemporary editions of Plato's works. I thought this would be good in part so that someone who wants to read and study Plato could have an idea of what sort of material is available. I tried to include references to sources for any claims as to the nature and value of the editions, but please improve if you feel compelled.--Atethnekos (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)