User talk:Singinglemon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Singinglemon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Deb 11:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Wow, Singinglemon, I really like your contributions to ancient philosophy. I am looking forward to reading much more of your work. Good luck, --Fabullus 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'm just messing around trying to improve things where I can. (The page on the Cynics was startling poor!) Singinglemon 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Singinglemon, I am really, really impressed by the many contributions you have made to the field of ancient philosophy on the english wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Best wishes, --Fabullus (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Singinglemon, I have to echo Fabullus. Your contributions are really impressive - both in quantity and quality! Great work. Jonathan Stokes (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Per your move of Olympiodorus to Olympiodorus (disambiguation), that is actually going against our conventions. In fact, there is an entire project, WP:MDP, which undoes (repairs) moves like that. Thought you would like to know. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Well, thank you for taking up my challenge about creating a page on Timocrates of Lampsacus! By the way, can we be sure that Epicurus' work entitled simply Timocrates (instead of 'against Timocrates') was really directed against the present Timocrates, or perhaps rather dedicated to another Timocrates (say Timocrates of Potamus, who may have been a pupil; at least he was close and trusted enough to be made one of the two chief beneficiaries and trustees of Epicurus' will)? --Fabullus (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right - I stupidly got the assertion from a textbook without thinking whether it was correct or not. It is also possible, I guess, that the work Timocrates was written for Timocrates of Lampsacus before he went apostatical. The only thing I can think of which might back up the idea these volumes were written against Timocrates is a line from Cicero (De Natura Deorum) that Epicurus "devoted whole volumes to the dissection of Timocrates, the brother of his own intimate companion Metrodorus, because he differed from him upon some point in philosophy." But that's too weak to stand as evidence, so I've expunged the line. Singinglemon (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


You wouldn't know by any chance the source for the assertion that Archelaus believed the earth to be shaped like an egg, would you? --Fabullus (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was a line copied straight out of Smith. The most detailed account of his philosophy is apparently from Hippolytus [1] who says concerning the Earth:

And he says that the heaven was inclined at an angle, and so that the sun diffused light over the earth, and made the atmosphere transparent, and the ground dry; for that at first it was a sea [or marsh?], inasmuch as it is lofty at the horizon and hollow in the middle. And he adduces, as an indication of the hollowness, that the sun does not rise and set to all at the same time, which ought to happen if the earth was even.

It sounds to me like he thought the surface of the Earth was like a saucer, which might make sense given that his teacher Anaxagoras apparently believed that the Earth was flat. Singinglemon (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's also what I remember. Should this be changed in the article? --Fabullus (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, let's just leave it like that. Afterall, it wouldn't be Wikipedia if there wasn't at least one made up fact per page. :) Singinglemon (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Diagoras of Melos[edit]

Thanks for the good expansion over there. Oh and for your ongoing high-level contributions as well. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Important Platonists[edit]

Hi! About this maybe you're right but if we consider important only who we have the luck to know something of his work neither Hypathia could be highlighted, and Hypatia was widely extimed an important Neoplatonist and a martyr. According to Eunapius (Vitae Sophistarum) Aedesius was an important Neoplatonist (even a saint) alongside the others I have highlighted. Philosophers like Sosipatra considered even a holy woman, Chrysanthius, Maximus of Ephesus, the Emperor Julian were considered important and so Sallustius (who wrote De Diis et Mundo), Macrobius etc.

I have highlighted philosophers like Aedesia and Asclepigenia cos they were important and extimed teachers and... also women, and in the history of philosophy there are few women, and in particular I want to put the attention to the fact that in the ancient world were even female philosophers.

Modern point of view about antiquity is often wrong, our criteria often are based on misconceptions or even prejudices (not your case I think ;)), for their contemporaries those philosophers were important why it should not be the same for us?

Cheers! ;) :)

--Antioco79 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)



This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Alexamenus, and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


I notice that you amended the text on Pliny and T. However, having re-read T's text "On Stones", I notice that he does mention old myths such as stones "growing" (a myth also repeated by Pliny). Your comments would be appreciated. Peterlewis (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I got the line from R. J. Forbes, (1966), Studies in Ancient Technology: Ancient Geology; Ancient Mining and Quarrying; Ancient Mining Techniques, page 8 where he says that his "work is also free from fable and magic, which Pliny's essay is certainly not." But I should have checked by reading the actual work! I've replaced the line with one from John F. Healy, Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology, page 176 where he says "One noteworthy feature of this work is its comparative freedom from fable and magic," which I hope is more accurate.
Incidentally, you might like to know that most of that subsection On Stones is a rough summary I wrote of an article from the 1830 edition of the The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal available here: [2] Thanks for the improvements you have made in the past week or two. Singinglemon (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I was hoping to speak with John Healy about Pliny, but unfortunately I learnt from his old department that he died some time ago. Such a shame after his two excellent books about Pliny. KC Bailey is also a good source of info. The only commentary I have seen on T appears to be very out-of-date and wrong in some particulars. Peterlewis (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Essence of things such as souls[edit]

Hello I hope all is well I want to work on the Neoplatonism article- Salvation (henosis) section. I don't want to use an entire Ennead to source the cosmic process. Ennead IV.8.6-7 could you please help. By the way your work so far is absolutely wonderful. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been struggling with this in my definition or translation of the nous or demiurge.[3] Problem is Aristotle is considered more important and key in that the one or source in substance is energy. Ousia/essence/substance both Aristotle and Plotinus state that the one in substance and or essence/ousia is energy. Plotinus makes the one, dynamus or force/power, as not the monad in ousia, with ousia meaning being (which the one can not have). Plotinus seems to cut operation as a meaning from energy/energeia, to make the one, force/power/dynamus. Difficult stuff, and then Continental philosophy changing things again. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge of Neoplatonism pretty weak. One reason I write stuff on here about ancient philosophy is to find out more it. I've had a proper look at the Neoplatonism article, and I am surprised how little it says on Neoplatonism! I might add some stuff, even if its just copying stuff over from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The detailed technicalities of Neoplatonism, I think are beyond me though. Singinglemon (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it is good to know I am not alone in being frustrated at having limited abilities in articulation. Your contributions are very good though. I wish I could write so well.
God Bless LoveMonkey (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly what you asked for, but I wrote a paragraph on what happens to the soul after death. What I wrote may be a bit confused, but the article needed a paragraph on the subject. I find it easier to write about the Cynics, they have almost no metaphysics whatsoever. :-) Singinglemon (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic transmigration and or the soul after death[edit]

Heres what I wrote about Plato, Socrates and Plotinus in the article.

"The philosophers called Neoplatonists did not found a school as much as attempt to preserve the teachings of Plato. They regarded themselves as Platonists. The concept of the One was not as clearly defined in Plato's Timaeus (the good above the demiurge) as it later was by Plotinus' Enneads. The afterlife as defined by Socrates in Phaedo is also different than the afterlife of the person or soul in the Enneads. The soul returns to the Monad or One in the Plotinus' works, whereas in Phaedo there are different afterlifes: one could be re-incarnated, one could receive punishment, or one could go to Hades to be with the heroes of old (Socrates' ideal afterlife for philosophers)."

The problem is that trying to jam too much info into the article can make things abit misleading. Socrates' Wasp treat re-incarnation as a damnation for conformists aka punishment. But it can appear at times that Plotinus is preaching conformity rather then ascetic rejection of the of world of mankind. Plato and or Socrates did not teach about the return to the one. Also I thought Tartarus was the place of punishment not Hades per se, like in the Myth of Er. I think my paragraph could use some work, because over oversimplification can misled. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the references I made to "Phaedo" and "Hades" - they were not helpful without a lot of extra sentences explaining what was meant. The Phaedo 114B-C was a point of reference for the Neoplatonists when discussing purification of the soul. The textbooks I look at mentioned "Hades", but yes, "Tartarus" is what Plato/Socrates refers to in the Phaedo.
I wanted to add something on reincarnation the page because this seems to have been an important doctrine for the Neoplatonists. The paragraph you quote makes it sound like the soul automatically returns to the One, but I think even Plotinus believed in the principle of reincarnation for all us impure souls, although he is a vaguer on the issue than the later Neoplatonists. Ennead iii.4.2-3, apparently, is supposed to refer to reincarnation.
Anyway, what I wrote could certainly do with expanding, the Neoplatonists had different views over the course of three centuries, what Iamblichus thought about the afterlife of the soul is obviously going to be a bit different from what Plotinus thought. And then there is the whole thorny question of the different afterlives of the lower irrational soul and the higher rational soul! Singinglemon (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Woof the reincarnation thing has gotten me in all kinds of trouble. Because it "is" the end or point of recycle in the process of ontology in Plato and Socrates. Like the drinking of the water of forgetfuliness so that each life would have the utmost sincerity. Very difficult subject. Plotinus and Iamblichus treated reincarnation as strictly failure or sin rather then punishment. But then they don't, making the whole thing a mess. Henosis is the most confusing part of it. You could look at it like Iamblichus would treat the process of reincarnation as the "head" on Uroboros. I yia yia yai. I being Greek Orthodx don't agree but consider these understandings important for history. PS don't kid yourself, your writing is way better then mine, you are a blessing. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The curse of Parmenides' Third man[edit]

The whole struggle with is.. the One, energy is it force. Comes from -can either engery or force be both it's self and a category? This one is a noodle cooker. This is the whole reason the one was never really worked out in contrast to the world of forms. Since the One as Plotinus describes it is kinda like the forms in that in order for it to be the real form (of anything) it would have to be of a singular undivided non multiple state of being. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the Wikipedia page on the Third Man Argument is almost unreadable, but I understand that the argument is meant to suggest that there could be an infinite regress of Forms. You may be right that the One in Neoplatonism is free from this problem. A statement on the problem that I found on Google Book Search says:

Regen argues that the One, postulated by Plotinus as a 'formless Form' is the vehicle for resolving the problem posed by the two versions of the third-man argument. Thus, the One is that in which all the Forms participate, but the One dies not participate in anything.

Singinglemon (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! You rule! Ha there it is. Now if I could complete the metaphysical libertarian strand of Neoplatonism that manifests as Russian Philosophy thru Soloviev and N. O. Lossky I'd have the complete picture. Of course this is manifest in Taleb and his and Dostoevsky's Pyrrhonism. It is articulated in the Hellenistic cultural transcendence of philosophy to Orthodoxy via Theophilia. This of course is also the basis of Zamyatin and his novel We. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Um yes, of course. The only Russian novel I've read is Anna Karenina. That, I'm afraid, is the extent of my knowledge of Russian literature or philosophy. Maybe, I'll give We a try sometime. Singinglemon (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Most excellent. For fun you should follow up on poshlust. It is the Russian expression for cheap imitation knowledge swallow philosophy or knowledge. Since Tolstoy wanted like Gogol to express this element in society as being a fixture and or parasitic growth from any embracing of Greekness. Spurious I tell you, spurious. BTW would you like an example or two? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I shall have to see if I can slip the word poshlost into a conversation some time, even if it only proves my own self-satisfied vulgarity and false importance! :-) Yes certainly give me some examples, it will help me understand it a bit better. Singinglemon (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
In the movie Nightwatch, the entire premise would be considered poshlust. You know Hollywood. That is one form. Poshlust is all around us. Voegelin used the word gnosticism to mean the same thing (which is really weird for us Orthodox). Mary Lefkowitz has written a book on it called Not out of Africa. Taleb would use the term for Conspiracy Theories, like say Immanuel Velikovsky etc,etc. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've not seen see Nightwatch, although I have heard of it. It sounds weird to me that anyone would use Poshlost to mean Gnosticism. Mary Lefkowitz and Taleb sound like my kind of philosopher to me. My qualifications are in science - to most scientists, philosophy is series of footnotes to Hume. :-) Singinglemon (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

????Strange thats how Tolstoy kinda used it, in Anna Karenina though. You know to mean gnosticism or the occult not strictly-gnosis though. Voegelin throws out the baby with the bathwater. Close to ersatz cult like or Kitsch understanding.[4] PS you should check out Professor Lefkowitz new book about the hell she went through fighting it[5]. Thank you for your time your an angel.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another very coool read about it. [6]. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Burnet's refutation of an "oriental origin of philosophy" seems to be mainly concerned with Egypt, rather than Babylonia or India, where I might expect an influence to come from. I'm not sure what his statement that "everything points to the conclusion that Indian philosophy arose under Greek influence" is supposed to mean. But he must be correct when he says that Greek philosophy was largely a native development. Singinglemon (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. The issue is that philosophy starts with Hesiod. Philosophy embodies "tools" to contemplate. If one contemplates that is, picks something apart to understand it. Dialects as such are word or verbable tools to do just that thing, hence one creates the sciences-biology, astronomy, physics etc. One gets epistemical knowledge via the dianoia component of the nous or mind. The point is there is no way to maintain the uniformately of understanding Egyptian hieroglyphs and then trying, to the damnest, to use allegory to reinterpet their message as philosophy. Or there is no hieroglyph for the word and or concept of say "ontology". There is no school or history of a school that studied this subject in any part of Egypt before it was conquired by Greece. To say other wise is a distortion. Hey Taleb covers this Fast Food style in his book Fooled by Randomness. Like on pg161 allegory as such is staticstical and or analytical. Also Orthodox Christianity is very close to the "New Academy" skepticism in that Pyhro was a skeptic about human abilities. This is what undid philosophy was by its nature it implied a conclusiviness that it could not valid or produce. Hence exactly what type of skepticism that the New Academy was teaching. This is covered better under gnosiology. Of course Plotinus was trying to reconcile all of this in his use of the one as force rather then energy (the Enneads). Force and energy being synonymous with is it a particle or is it a wave. AKA Wave–particle duality. Remember Hellenic philosophy was using dialects to arrive at this not technology so the concepts are sorta primative. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside this is the legacy of philosophy, this is not what gnosis is. Philosophy has its gnosis. That gnosis is different then Greek Orthodoxy. There are different gnosis some false and true some good some bad. One must have Sophia to see which is which and why. This understanding has a most critical component. Humility against hubris.

Spiritual humility not a mechanical kind. This is ekkenosis. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This all leads to me trying to post on the demiurge article that the word demiurge really translates into dynamic force (monad) or creative energy (demiurge/nous).

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

suggestion---add an example of the argument in non-abstract terms. DGG (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Good to see you DGG. Thats kinda what the people I have been mentioning had been saying. In their own way of course. Lefkowitz, Vogelin, Gogol, Plotinus and Dostoevsky are such things. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


I want to remind you about the advisability of having accessible modern secondary sources in articles on ancient figures, even from the very start--it will keep the ignorant from challenging them. I admire the work you;re doing--and it could be so helpful if you'd continue your project of adding modern references, Have you considered adding the modern standard classical dictionaries like the OCD--though they are not free they are available online? And perhaps it would be good to beginners if you indicated which of the dozen of so standard treatments of major figures you list as Additional reading are the most accessible and recommended? I know you're fully aware of all this, so its just a reminder, stimulated by some recent challenges. I'll catch whatever I can, but prevention is safer. DGG (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If you would like singlemom I can help with this. Just contact me and let me know. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for adding to the article. But please add a source for your edit, otherwise it could be subject to deletion as original research. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know that, feel free to delete it, I don't mind. The article, though, really needs a focus on the ancient Greek concept, not just the New Testament or Michel Foucault. Singinglemon (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Rather than delete your edit, I would rather have you continue to improve the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. And thanks for spotting the absence of a citation. I've fixed it now. Singinglemon (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Syriac orgins to Philosophy[edit]

Hey when get a chance you should read through some of Taleb's blog [7]. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I for one would buy a book called "Antiplatonism for Morons". :-) I shall take a good look at his blog, he seems to know all the obscure Hellenistic philosophers. I think I came across his Black swan theory just the other day actually, it's probably been much talked about in relation to the current "Credit Crunch". Singinglemon (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah Taleb is quite the anti-darling, anti-hero[8]. Taleb is New Academy Pyrrho. I really really like his take on Nicholas Metropolis' work and also on applied Heuristics. Hes absolutely as Byzantine philosophy as you can get. He is a tiny spark of that great fire that is gone. It is the idea that decisions are based on faith, randomness not on logic and therefore it is better to make a decision as is honest and state that one proceeds by not knowledge, logic rational, but by faith. It's modern name would epistemelogical libertarianism. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh the Monte Carlo method, that takes me back to my physics education. Wikipedia could also do with a page on Byzantine philosophy, it's not a subject I know much about. I'm not sure what you mean by "decisions are based on faith," you either mean it in a formal Pyrrhonist sense, that we can never know if any fact is true, or perhaps you mean it in an informal sense, that we don't know what the hell we're doing most of the time - certainly the entire field of Economics looks like that to me. :-) Hmm, letsee, "epistemological libertarianism" - that would translate as "anarchic-freedom of knowledge"? Singinglemon (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gnosiology is one branch of Byzantine Philosophy. You got it right that overthinking leads to the entropy that the Pyrrhonist were accused of (indecision). Shannon would be proud. Epistemological libertarianism is an extension of natural libertianism in that it can scientifically be demonstrated that mankind has free will. Russian philosophy is an attempt to reconcile German neo-idealism (metaphysics, ontology) with Byzantine gnosiology. Theoria, hesychasm and photomos are all extensions of post-philosophy of what the Byzantines did after validating the supernatural and or truth. A very distorted poshlusty version of this is the European vitalistists. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there was a page on "Epistemological anarchism", but I did not think that was what you were talking about - it looked rather poshlosty to me! I would like to see it scientifically demonstrated that mankind has free will - I feel like my memes are controlling me most of the time. :-) So then, (and this will probably all go over my head), what are the similarities between German neo-idealism and Byzantine gnosiology? Singinglemon (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wooo you asking a very hot topic question. Leibniz believed in the substance of things being also the essence of things-ousia (I know I am over simplifying). This was his argument in Monadology. That whatever the substance was that all things reduce to, this was also an essence, and all things have one common essence. This would mean (sort of) that the monad as an essence and substance and was God in an Aristotle, Plotinus kinda way. That the Universe was God in essence or substance. That variation was driven by unity (or synthesis) and that since the substance or essence was "infinite" or supernatural (uncreated=gnosiology) the variance was also infinite exponentially. This is a very cheap way of saying it, but I hope you can see that Leibnez's metaphysics was his attempt to resolve the concept of substance with the concept of essence as laid out by Aristotle's metaphysics. The German ran into anomalies with the wide variants in the epistemological application of ontology (ousis, to be)= metaphysics, they did not have gnosiology and did not understand some guys along the way got it wrong (hint: Augustine and Aquinas). This was also what Plotinus was doing and is referred to as Neoplatonism. One difference is that gnosiology teaches all of metaphysics are really dealing with is energies. The energies of God are not strictly God. God is hyberousia in being hence the Essence-Energies distinction. Dianoia wont get you to see infinity (God the Father). Spiritual (hesychasm) contemplation (theoria) will though. Gnosiology is how one approaches the infinite. Monads in German Neo-idealism are the raw and it is the mind that creates the (via Platos forms) Monads into reality. Reflective as in phenomenology. Monads have no windows in Leibnez (unlike in N. O. Lossky) Leibnez's monads are reflective and cause toward selflessness and unity (this is called love). This is very difficult and I have gotten it wrong. It would probably help if I believed in Monadology, lol. Since Leibnez was (under the umbrella of metaphysics, ontology, existentialism) trying to reconcile science, religion and philosophy into one organic whole consciousness (his Monalogy). Of course Vladimir Lossky was expressing that gnosiology was a way to understand and approach the infinite with the truest of all things that is mankind. That being man's whole person unitied called your heart or nous. Gnosiology is the neptic study of infinity. Reason and freedom of the will as the icon of God. Meta-philosophy (theophilious) since gnosiology is transcendent to the concept of confine or define (finitiness). Gnosiology or Byzantine philosophy (strictly as discourse) is laid out in the philokalia.[9] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Meta-philosophy's definition.

In the Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates describe the characteristics of the True thinker. When Phaedrus asks what one should call such a man, Socrates, following Heraclitus, replies that the term sopho, one who knows, would be excessive: this attribute may be applied to God Alone : but one well call him philosophos. Thus "actual knowledge" is reserved to God; finite man can only be the "lover of knowledge," not himself the one who knows. In the meaning of the passage, the lover of the knowledge that belongs only to the knowing God, the philosophos, becomes the theophilos, the lover of God." Science, Politics, And Gnosticism by Eric Voegelin Publisher: ISI Books ISBN-10: 1932236481

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Epistemeological libertarianism[edit]

Epistemological libertarianism is the validation via science of free will as a characteristic of human consciousness.

Epistemological libertarianism follows from Natural libertarianism.
Natural libertarianism is......
Naturalistic libertarians believe that the universe contains an indeterminstic element (randomness), for instance as demonstrated by quantum mechanics, and that human beings exploit this to achieve freedom of choice. There is no separate, dualistic self in this theory: the self is the total activity of the brain as a system.
Epistemological libertarianism is the scientific validation (via stochastics) that randomness exists and that it can be used by human beings to make choices, (like Two Face in Batman or the bad guy in No Country for Old Men) with his flip of the coin (like gambling see the Monte Carlo method). The free will here, can use randomness through various devices (dice) to side step the causal chain and make a decision.
This means that people confront randomness in various forms in daily life (see Buridan's ass) and have ways to "make" a choice other then deterministic ways. Since random events have no deterministic causation and as events can be validated epistemeologically. Faith is one example. Also random events are not strictly "subatomic" nor are they strictly in the realm of the study and mapping of energies (i.e. quantum physics). There is no way to determine specific types of human behavior. Since not all human behaviour is logical and or instinctual some behaviour is random. Common human mistakes are random in nature for example. Also human physical characteristics are also sumbebekos/random (eye color, hair color). As this, Determinism as an all encompassing theory, fails to account for uniqueness as a physical causation one example here would individual consciousnesses, (no song is ever performed exactly the same twice, ever by any human performer).
Now Libertarianism (metaphysics) is the overview of both since stochastics are not strictly confined to the physical, natural Universe (mathmatics are abstract knowledge of the mind--stochastics are mathmatics). Consciousness is part of this, due to the hard problem of consciousness for example, through I agree with John Searle. This means one returns to Kant and Liebniz and that stochatics in essence are abstract knowledge as is all of mathmatics- since math is not physical but abstract.
LoveMonkey (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey here is an article that best articulates what I am trying to state [10]

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that. Give me another couple of days to read to read up on all this (I've been away from Wikipedia for much of the past 3 weeks, which explains my tardiness in replying). I can't say I feel much wiser concerning Leibniz, German neo-idealism, and Byzantine gnosiology, but Determinism is perhaps a subject I'm more equipped to get my head around. I shall have to work out whether I am a Philosophical zombie or not. Singinglemon (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This all from the perspective of Stephen Hawkings. [11] Please note randomness can be used, this is the very heart of what makes the Monte Carlo method, the Monte Carlo method.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Physicialism and logical positivism[edit]

You know Gödel refuted logical positivism, that is what his incomplete theorems are famous for. I apologize since I know the link I posted above covers that, but determinism is the same argument as physicialism. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, I didn't make the connection between Gödel and logical positivism. Interesting to read that Stephen Hawking thinks that we can have "determinism on a reduced level." I don't know when that particular article was written, but his statement that "Goedels theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists," is, I think, a bit optimisitc, M theory has taken a bit of a battering in the past few years. Anyway, his reduced determinism of quantum theory sounds a long way from the rigid determinism of Laplace, and the 19th century physicists. Singinglemon (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There ya go. I was pointing out that idealism is not realism. That idealism (and neo-idealism too) is subjective, realism is the "out there yonder past our minds is concrete and real". It is objectivism. I don't believe in determinism, since it can not be proven scientifically, how poshlust filthy to sell faulty fortune telling as science. Heres the noodle baker, I dont believe in determinism, but I do believe in an objective world. This is what gnosiology is. Not metaphyical because infinity can not be grasp by dianoia (epistemology). It is the very devil that believes that the infinite can be correctly expressed through finitness.[12] Its this very belief that caused him to take his challenge to render all (God, the Universe, all uncreated and created) to nothingness, it is the very essence of his belief in his rebellious gamble. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course all of this hinges on several things the obvious and ugly is -What is free will? There is a validatable free will and a free will that is intrinsic uniquely to each individual. A free will that says it is something onto itself (essentialism) and as such is accessible. Then a Free will that only you can experience since I can not access your nous and see and feel your consciousness from inside your head. Most of this true was address as problems of consciousness.

LoveMonkey (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And now finally meta-math.[13] Yes he is saying that closed mathmatical systems are in their incompleteness...Well that they are generating randomness. Again this is gnosiology in that finite can not account for infinite where as the reverse is not true. Determinism and finiteness being intimate.

And finally forgive me, it took my alittle while to run this down and it is only one of them, but here is the showman Pooper on it as well.[14] Again determinism is not scientific in that it is not validatible. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I never thought determinism was validatible, but how about compatibilism, can't we just have determinism and free-will? :-) I'm still not sure how gnosiology is supposed to better at approaching the infinite than any other method (sounds quite Neoplatonist though!) Singinglemon (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm well compatiblism states that determinism is true, which means determinism is validable. Which it is not, so compatiblism is not true. Gnosiology is not pantheistic, God is in and outside space and time in Gnosiology. In Neoplatonism nothing is outside space and time since there is no outside space and time (aka the Universe, nature). Neoplatonism is not panenthestic which Gnosiology is much closer to being. [15] Note this book is calling Stanford a liar-[16] Oh well. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

N. O. Lossky bug[edit]

I have been trying to think of a way to simplify this all. So here is the next level. N.O. Lossky takes the philosophy of idealism or subjectivism (that there is nothing outside of the human mind and everything is an illusion) and N. O. Lossky (via the Russian concept of sobornost) fuses subjectivism with objectivism (that there is a real world no matter if human conscious exists or not i.e. Philosophical realism) into what he calls ideal-realism. He then uses this fusion to underpin Aristotle's epistomologies. These validations are called axioms (these are Losskys Axiology-this as the epistemological validation of Value and Existence) and via this fusion of the two philosophies N. O. Lossky can validate free will. This is metaphysical free will (reality is infinite and infinity can not be a close system therefore such an absolute such as determinism is a fallacy). Persons can purposely trigger events that are outside the causal chain (random), Consciousness can be outside the causal chain by engaging randomness. Only persons can trigger such an event, because only persons have an understanding (reflective consciousness-Leibnez) or perspective of reality that could even understand an event as caused or uncaused by the objective world. N. O. Lossky then transcends metaphysics via what is called intuitivism, after he fuses it with personalism. Lossky sees Aristotle's metaphysics as the beginnning of intiutivism. This of course is then called intuitive-personalism. This fusion ends in the complete transcendence of metaphysics, this then ends in a complete conclusive reconciliation of the internal and external worlds. The organic connection between the two being the nous and philosophically sobornost (the nous the eye of the soul sobornost the understanding of the World as a complete organic Whole). This leads then to infinity and the study of infinity not from rationality but from intuitivity after metaphysics this is then called, gnosiology. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Byzantine Bug[edit]

Here is the culmination of the whole thing and its clash with the West. Here are Taleb's theories being validated by quantum physics (for example). [17], Anton Zeilinger. Flawed yes, but this is the new science. Here is a direct connection between the quantum world and the "real" or "objective" world. Some are trying to claim does not exist or at least it can not be validate epistemologically well you know what Taleb and Dennett both get one giant step forward on this. Here it is epistemologically, rather a jump of the gun or not. Again Lossky and Taleb's theory of free will works because with randomness they prove people make decision(s)/outcome(s) that are not based on the causation chain or the external world's causality (outcomes that are not predicatable by previous events). This validates what Chaitin states against John Von Neumann, Chaitin shows that randomness can be generated from a closed system and that entropy is symptom of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ammonius Saccas[edit]

My apologies. --Carlaude (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK first shot[edit]

Heres my first shot at the Demiurge with the Eastern Byzantine-ish take on Plotinus. Though the work I am sourcing from is a Spanish work. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Epistemeological libertarianism[edit]

From Taleb himself.
Epistemeological libertarian-someone (like myself) who considers that knowledge is subjected to strict rules, but not institutional authority as the interests of organized knowledge is self-perpetuation, not necessarily truth (just like governments). [18] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
So yes you are right Epistemeological libertarianism is what you say it is.... LoveMonkey (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Again Anyhow ....Heres some more science on it..Antonio Damasio-[19]. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more episteme to that epistemelogical libertarianism-[20], [21]. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

I deeply enjoy reading your contributions, especially about ancient medicine, Singinglemon. By the way, do you happen to remember which cynic coined the expression "I'd rather be mad than merry?"Oilstone (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I was mainly just curious as to what the different medical sects (Dogmatic, Empiric, Methodic, Pneumatic, Eclectic) were all about, since there was nothing about them on Wikipedia. They probably need more modern sources than the ancient Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities though. The Cynic quote you mention is Antisthenes, the usual translation is: "I'd rather be mad than feel pleasure" (Diogenes Laertius, vi. 3). Singinglemon (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentaries on Aristotle[edit]

The fact that I'm having to justify keeping a little shred of reference to an obscure Aristotelian commentator made me notice how we lack any coherent & unified treatment of even the most important (esp. Greek) commentators. Well, I couldn't think of anyone better than you in whose brain to plant this great idea, so here I am doing it. Yes, I realize this is one of those suggestions so much more easily given than taken up, but you can't blame me for trying. Yours truly, Wareh (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I Googled-up three, rather geriatric, public-domain sources on this subject, and put them into a page. I even tried to correct the inevitable errors. I'm not sure if this page mentions all of the most-important commentators, and there's obviously a lot of minor ones missed out, but it might do for starters. Singinglemon (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, just having a place to point to is nice, but you've offered a much better beginning than that. Many thanks! Wareh (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a view on where the right place to put a Category:Commentators on Aristotle might be—i.e., parallel to or beneath Category:Aristotelian philosophers? I just made a second commentator article (Michael of Ephesus), but you've contributed many many more, and it would be nice to class them clearly together. Wareh (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Tricky one. I suppose I would place it in Category:Aristotelianism. I doubt we can call everyone who wrote commentaries on Aristotle an Aristotelian philosopher. On the other hand, there's plenty of categories on Wikipedia which don't precisely fit their parent categories, the whole business of categorisation tends to be rather messy. Good work on Michael of Ephesus, BTW. Singinglemon (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! That's how I was leaning. Wareh (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the level pre-Taleb[edit]

This is an article about stochastics (Byzantine-ism) from MIT. [22] Father Pavel Florensky just might be made a Saint here real soon in the community. He too got a bullet in the head. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So I hope that this stuff I have been putting on your talkpage, 1. Doesn't make you mad at me. 2. Somehow, someday can be be fused streamlined and articulated into and article on Byzantine philosophy. Like I have attempted here Essence-Energies distinction.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
And in summation........

Socratic Barnstar.gif The Socratic Barnstar
For being cool enough and brave enough to fleshout the Byzantine philosophy article. Thank you so much. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi LoveMonkey. Any inadequate responses from me are due to my confusion. I lack the knowledge to participate in an adequate conversation on philosophy outside of a very limited knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy. My understanding of Byzantine gnosiology or any related subject is pitiful; I created the page on Byzantine philosophy, because I knew you would appreciate it, but even that seemed a rather poor job on my part. I appreciate the time you took to guide me through some of this stuff. Singinglemon (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


I have retired, moved on what'ver. Here is the whole thing in a neat little package[23] Enjoy Good Luck.. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope its not a permanent retirement. I've had to take a break as well - all sorts of chaos has been occurring where I am. Editing Wikipedia can seem depressing at times, lots of work, for little reward, and I'm not going to mention the arguments. Oh well, I hope to continue seeing you around. Singinglemon (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of ancient Greek philosophers[edit]

A wonderful addition you have made to List of ancient Greek philosophers! The additional information sounds like a good idea, and I think this would be best presented as a table. JEN9841 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Epicurean template[edit]

Just out of curiosity (really: no objections should be inferred from my asking, though I find that such are often lurking in seemingly innocuous utterances on Wikipedia), why did you reposition Rabirius in the Epicureanism template? When I added him, I saw no particular order (neither chronological nor alphabetical), so since he's so very minor I stuck him on the end. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh it is meant to be in chronological order (roughly). The template is following the order of the List of Epicurean philosophers I made. The problem is that most of the Roman era philosophers all lived in the 1st Century BC or there-abouts, and I couldn't get very many accurate dates for them, so my ordering is rather haphazard. Feel free to try rearranging them. Singinglemon (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, right, I see now. Catius is the one who threw me; he's usually grouped with Amafinius and Rabirius because of his approach, and though his date of death is unclear from Cicero's reference, it seems clearly after the death of Lucretius. Thanks. I always hesitate to ask questions like that, because people often think the asker is looking for a quarrel, when in fact I just want to understand the line of thinking so I can do likewise. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I want to thank you for all your wonderful additions. It is always a pleasure to read your contributions. Pollinosisss (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, well thanks, but really I'm just messing around adding stuff as I see fit. :) Singinglemon (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Greeky stuff and Western misunderstandings??[edit]

Happy New Year.. I was hoping to point out some tiny stuff that would be really neato to make wiki abit more correct and abit less Francopapa. So please forgive me. I am feeling the need to be integral in this so I will say it with one foot in the East and one foot in the West (so to say it via sobornost). Zero is the enemy of the oldest forms of emanationism, i.e. Mystery Cults. Aristotle worked to make emanationism work, to work with the "worship of reason" as the one true faculty to gain truth (hence his work called metaphysics). To have it work and be a rational functional thing. His concept of first principles is so essential to this. According to Hellenistic Pagan Philosophical understanding there is no zero, no no-thing and there is no randomness. These are in a sense what is missing from so much understanding of philosophy in the West as Aristotle's creator (unmoved mover)was deterministic and the cosmos followed efficiency (for example). Now the early Christians were called believers in zero or nothing. As believers in this, the old Hellenistic way of saying that, was that they were called atheists.

Nihilism, atheism is and was that reality is without energy (actuality from Aristotle) as energeia to Aristotle is not activity but actuality. The amount of energeia an object has gives it different levels of actuality (not activity). Nihilism states that there is no- thing behind everything. That there is no substance, that there is no thing in itself. That reality has no actuality. That zero is the one true faculty to gain truth. Aristotle encountered this way of thinking in his day, he encountered it as mysticism. Mysticism and nihilism say that reality has no actuality. That reality is an illusion. No one in the West talks about this Aristotle. This is the Aristotle of the Greeks, the Aristotle of the East. Not the Aristotle of Thomas Aquinas. Big thing, very hard to say, I hope I got it, so that you understand. Also tiny subtle but critical thing. When the Greeks say epistemology. They are talking about ways to teach. Ways to communicate ideas. And epistemology is this type of knowledge, not simple knowledge. Its all francopapa cause when the Roman Catholic church slandered Photius they vilified this whole thing because this is what Photius was teaching. And yes he was the head of the philosophy department at the University of Constantinople. Look into the chop job done on him by Western Historians. (LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for me to bestow a barnstar for the first time[edit]

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
I award the Epic Barnstar to Singinglemon for remarkable contributions to the encyclopedia, especially the many new articles on ancient thinkers and writers. Today I typed "Neanthes of Cyzicus" into Google; without your article, the first page of results would have had no useful orienting information: an utterly typical (if relatively minor) example of your good work. Wareh (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy infobox[edit]

Hi, I noticed you changed the 'era' field of Pythagoras's {{infobox}} to be Ancient philosophy, rather than Pre-socratic philosophy. I've noticed that of the pre-Socratics some have one in their infobox, and some the other. Is there anywhere that defines what should go here? Or is it just a matter of following the consensus from other similar articles? (I've seen the information on the Template:Infobox_Philosopher page, but that just narrows it down to pages in the given category, as I understand it.)

I'm asking mainly because I'm relatively new here and had wondered at some of the way things were categorized and would love to find some policy to follow.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Syncategoremata. I'm afraid it was a fairly arbitrary decision on my part to change that particular field. It's just that for ancient philosophers, from Socrates onwards, one usually sees Ancient philosophy in that field; and it's also a usage which is more compatible with philosophers from other traditions (eg. Confucius or Laozi - both of whom, in terms of era, are pre-Socratic, but one would never call them that). But the template page is not very clear on this. You'll find the categorization of things on Wikipedia is often a bit arbitrary and chaotic. Singinglemon (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I wondered if that might be the answer, as it is to most things in life. I'll try and pick up the system as I go, by keeping an eye out on how things are done.
As for the change, I certainly agree on Ancient philosophy as being appropriate for everyone from Socrates to Aristotle, with pre-Socratic philosophy before that point and Hellenistic philosophy after (though I'd usually consider Pythagoras to be at least pre-Socratic).
Many thanks for the reply and all the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I was actually arguing that Ancient philosophy is appropriate for everyone from Thales to Boethus. :) Anyway feel free to change Pythagoras back to pre-Socratic philosophy, I don't mind what it is - it was the region field which was incorrect and which I really wanted to change. If you want clarification on this era question you could try asking on the Template Talk page. Singinglemon (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! putting them all in one long era works too, very true; and it would be hard to disagree with having some sort of major break after Boethius. Sorry for the slow reply, but I've been a bit distracted recently.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about finding the typos[edit]

Thank you Singinglemon for fixing the typo on Epictetus‎. How did you discover the change? I'm wondering if it is highlighted in some manner on your PC, perhaps rendered in italics or a color differing from that of unedited text. There is no such device on my old PC, and finding a typo without any hint is a real strain on eyes and patience. I shall watch this page for your reply. Thank you. Xophist (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xophist, yes changes are highlighted on my PC. A word that has been changed like that shows up in vivid bright red! I was surprised when I saw your reversion, I wondered how you could have missed it. I'm using an old PC as well (with a Linux operating system). What browser are you using? I'm using Mozilla Firefox. Singinglemon (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Singinglemon. I shall not be so quick to revert what I do not see. I forgot to mention that I solved the problem by checking "Allow pages to use their own colors" under Preferences->Content->Color button. I shall probably only resort to that for difficult cases like the one that got by me this time. I had forgotten that many years ago I imposed a standard color scheme for all web pages (green text on black background, like the original monochrome monitors). I don't like a change in color scheme with every website, just as I wouldn't like a book with pages of randomly varying colors. Now for some harmless talk about old things. My PC is about 12 years old (500 MHz glorified P-II processor Pentium_III#Katmai, 768MB RAM), and runs a minimal Linux similar to Linux From Scratch. I have removed almost all the system fonts, and use Code2000 family fonts and a few others. The latest Firefox that works on this system is I like retro and minimal technology, such as old radios, sliderule, and abacus. So the limitations are self-inflicted, and I shall desist from reverting unless I can see an unacceptable edit. Thanks again for satisfying my curiosity. Long ago I had noticed that you were an important contributor on ancient thinkers, so I thank you for that as well. Xophist (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cynic[edit]

The article Cynic you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Cynic for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Shimeru (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits in Heraclitus from July 2009[edit]

Hey. I just wonder; why did you remove subheadings from the section "Life" in the article Heraclitus at 21:38, 23 July 2009? You didn't give any reason for the action. --Mashaunix (wordsdeeds) 13:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, I must admit I wasn't expecting anyone to ask about this 10 months after I performed the action. :-) Is there a page linking to one of the subjections? - if so then I apologise for not checking. I removed the subheadings because they were a bit pointless - the life section is quite short, there is very little which is definitely known about Heraclitus. There isn't much point in subheadings before every single paragraph if there isn't any important change of theme - it just creates a lot of little stubs and breaks up the flow. That's my view anyway. :-) I should add that my edits were part of a major clean-up attempt of the page, as explained at Talk:Heraclitus#Second Call For A Completely New Article In Place Of This One. Singinglemon (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits to De rerum natura[edit]

Thanks for your work in cleaning up De rerum natura; it is no longer a hero-worshiping tract about Lucretius and is a much better article with an NPOV and with much less OR. My only minor concern is the summary where you cite the nineteenth century work of William Ramsay; surely there's something more recent. All the best, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I too would add 'may the gods bless you,' if they took any part in the mundane affairs of mortals. I've feared to tread in that article, as you may recall. I'm tweaking one thing in the lead section, because it doesn't go with what's left in the article; I don't see where a role for 'chance' is explained in the body text. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh I know William Ramsay is an old source, but Lucretius is a clear and straight-forward writer, and Ramsay seems to have been well-informed. I often cherry-pick nineteenth-century sources (the Theophrastus article, for example, is something I put together from five pre-1920 sources - not ideal, but better than the terrible 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica which originally made up the page). It would be much better, of course, to make a survey of the modern literature - just an awful lot slower though.
The De rerum natura article still isn't great, and I don't much like the one section which does have modern references - on "Lucretius' physics" - it seems to me to be stating the bleeding obvious that Lucretius' physics is limited compared with modern science. Singinglemon (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
But it's sooooooooooo much better, as SteveMcCluskey said. It's an enormous topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I calculate it to be 64.3% better, so on that basis I would call it sooo much better, rather than sooooooooooo much better, unless I failed to factor in the pedagogical quotient properly - I can never do those cube-roots in my head! :) Singinglemon (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ho ho. Maybe some day I'll actually suck it up and work on a significant article in my areas of interest instead of cowering in the shadows. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well you're on a hiding to nothing getting involved with List of wars between democracies - if ever there was a page which no one was going to agree on . . . :) Singinglemon (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Not the brightest thing I've done. This is why I spend most of my time writing on minutiae. I feast along the way, but only share snacks. I have an article I'd like to write someday (and have started taking notes for offline) on "Epicureanism in ancient Rome." Looking at how it was introduced to Rome, how to explain its attraction to political somebodies like Calpurnius Piso (since Epicurus advised staying out of politics), Cicero's love-hate for it. If I ever get enough even to call it a draft, I'll drop a note and get your input. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Just to let you know I have been through and given section-by section comments. Sorry for not being the speediest reviewer in hisory.

One thing that is occurring to me is that the article, although it gives a very clear overview of the subject and his work, does not have any modern evaluation or appreciation in it. Just thought I would mention that.

Cheers.--FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I have just been through the review criteria and the only obstacle to GA I can see is that all the classical sources cited come without full bibliographic details. Hope that's not too difficult to fix. --FormerIP (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Diogenes of Sinope[edit]

Thanks for adding the images to the article. My visceral reaction was against that statue, which has got to be one of the ugliest well-intentioned artworks I have ever seen. I was sloppy in my editing, and thought I had restored your other contributions and moved the statue image to lower in the article, but evidently hit retrn too early. As I said, my fault, and thanks again for adding the other images. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Diogenes and Alexander[edit]

I leave the hyperlink to Suidas in your hands. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Um, thanks, I think. :) If it's the citation for Diogenes being born on the same day as Alexander you mean, then it's actually Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius who claim that, I'll certainly correct that bit anyway. Singinglemon (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Navia says Suidas. Twice. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Hmm, on page 21, Navia says Suidas says he died in the same year. But we should, of course go the source, and ah you're right: [24], the Suda does say the same day, my mistake! I would still give Plutarch and Laertius the priority for this reference. Some of the Suda entries are, I think, just compressed versions of Diogenes Laertius, and that's what this looks like. But I'll add it to the reference. Thanks for pointing that out! Singinglemon (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


I hope you are doing well, yes? I am dropping by to ask for your help on the wonderful (so far) Potentiality and actuality article. I am in the middle of a very long protracted conflict here and I simply do not have the time. But I hope you can help out. I did not really get to add to the article any of David Bradshaw's work on the history of the uncreated. Under his work Aristotle East and West [25]. However you are most excellent and I am hoping you can maybe do something. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Getica (Dio)[edit]

Hi! I saw you question the notability of Getica (Dio). I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and I am wondering what do you want to see in the article to remove that? I created the stub and I was planning to expand on it, also was hoping that others will contribute content. I find this notability concept a bit distressing for an encyclopedia, since I my mind, people should be able to find everything in it. Also, I find this very subjective when it comes to ancient history, since inherently people know little about it, and probably many care less and less about the subject as the time is passing. Yet, for people interested in history, this could be useful and interesting. Please let me know your thoughts. --Codrinb (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Stoicism, status = on hold[edit]

Hello Singinglemon. The article Stoicism, which I see you have made substantial contributions to, has been nominate for GA review. I have been reviewing the article and am pleased with the quality of the article. However, there are several minor details the need to be addressed before I can pass the article. Please see Talk:Stoicism/GA1 for a list of changes that need to be made if you would like to help bring this article to GA status. ----Tea with toast (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hey[edit]

I was hoping (with sugar on top) if you could help me source the Essence–Energies_distinction#Byzantine_and_Russian_philosophy section of the Essence-Energies article. Since there is an edit warring pair on the article I was hoping that an outside editor adding the sourcing would minimize the drama. I say reword it to fit the sourcing and the like. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I noticed that you are no longer active by the end of 2010. Therefore I do not know if you read this, but we must always try. I'm an Italian user and I was very impressed with the list of articles, in your user page, which you created or expanded. The scope of interest you see me very interested; it is important, in my opinion, convey to contemporary the thought of the ancients. I would therefore like to thank you for your work, that, with effort, I'm trying to carry on is a strange place, closer to form than substance, so I find myself working almost in hiding. The hard work I do is double compared to a user "free" (if there is someone free in, but I do it with pleasure, because I'm not a vandal or a troll, but a person who likes to spread the knowledge in its forms. And I think that your work can be useful for this purpose. Thank you again. Come back to us wikipedians! --NumquamDraco (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi, and as many others here I'm sure have noted, you've contributed quite a lot to wikipedia, especially with ancient Greek authors. I have a question about the full name of an author that's abbreviated in the footnote of one of your (many) articles: in the article about Demetrius of Magnesia, you cite an author - Harpocrat. Ispios. I'm really curious who that author is, I've searched everything on Google and can't find anything. Thank you :)

Cornelius (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For anyone that is interested, I found the ancient author abbreviated to Harpocrat. as Harpocration :)

Cornelius (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for improving lots of Greek philosophy-related articles, including my one of Scholarch. dchmelik (t|c) 11:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Epictetus thought section[edit]

Singinglemon Your thought section addition to the Epictetus article is excellent. It is a succinct and well-written description of the essential philosophical position of this immeasurably important stoic thinker. Many Thanks! --Lizb07 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Scaphe Page[edit]

I see that you were one of the last people to edit the scaphe page. I have been working on it in my sandbox. I am about to post the new scaphe page, would you help me out by looking it over and improving anything I didn't quite get right?

Thanks--Gaurd.vanforlife (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)