Talk:Socrates

Copy edit as requested

I've just had a trial edit through the subsection 'Socratic philosophy of politics', enjoyed copy editing it and have agreed to pick the task up on the Guild of Copy Editors request page. But I see that the GA review has already started. Should the listing of this article be removed from the GOCE Requests page? Richard asr (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No, pls procede! I see no problem arising. Cinadon36 15:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cinadon36, I'm happy to carry on.

At the beginning of the third paragraph of subsection Legacy/Modern times, was Kierkegaard's 'dissertation on Socrates' his doctoral dissertation? As it is worded, it leaves the reader wondering. Richard asr (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the final sentence of the final paragraph in Legacy/Modern times: '...which is the hallmark of his philosophy...' Whose philosophy, Socrates' or Popper's?

@Richard asr: thanks for your amazing c/editing! It was the master thesis of Kierkegaard. "Kierkegaard’s master’s thesis, On the Concept of Irony with Constant Reference to Socrates, heralds a freedom-loving Socrates who is prone to negate conventional values. Socrates’ reputation...." (Ahbel-Rappe, 2009). As for the hallmark, Open Society is the hallmark of Popper's philosophy. Thanks! I will let you make the clarifications needed! Many thanks once more! Cinadon36 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cinadon36. I'm sure I'll have more questions later, and thanks for clear answers. Really enjoying the article, by the way. Richard asr (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cinadon36, I've added a little to the opening paragraph of the section Sources and the Socratic problem, to make later sentences tied in with an earlier statement that 'The works of Plato, Xenophon, and other authors...' but what I have written really needs a reference. My own reference to the statement would be, Cooper, John M, and Hutchinson, D. S. 1997. Plato: Complete Works, edited with Introduction and Notes. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge. Shall I introduce this reference or would you prefer to use one of the existing ones? Richard asr (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Goodmorning Richard asr! (it s morning here) Pls add your citation, don't forget to add an authorlink to Cooper! I might add more citations later, even though I am not for citation overkill and undisputed text doesn't need more than one or two refs. Cinadon36 08:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Cinadon36. It's morning here too, in the UK. Do you wish this article to use British English? I only ask because the use of en rules seems to be favoured over em rules for parenthetical dashes, but this use seems a little erratic. Particularly in the subsection Socratic philosophy of politics, where it seems to be all over the place. Richard asr (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no preference or opinion on this issue Richard asr. Cinadon36 08:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Then I'll stick to Oxford style for this, since 'categorize' seems preferred over 'categorise', and use closed-up em rules. Our American friends will prefer this anyway! Richard asr (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cenadon36: Final sentence of the subsection Sources and the Socratic problem/The Socratic Problem, it it referring to Xenophon's Apology, Plato's Apology, or both? Richard asr (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noting! It refers to Plato's Apology. "...asserts that the Platonic Apology is a separate case since it is the text that has the best chance of corresponding to a “quasi-historical document” (1996, p. 88) and a “historical account” (1992, p. 257; see also 240 n. 9) of Socrates’ philosophy". Cinadon36 10:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cidadon36, I'll pop that in. Also, do you want to use BC–AD or BCE–CE for dates, the article uses both at the moment. Richard asr (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer CE and BCE. It is used in Cambridge companion to Socrates, Bloomsbury companion to Socrates and Brill's companion to Socrates- also at Ahbel-Rappe 2009. It is more common in such kind of articles and in the literature (just a feeling, though, I haven't searched). I am not strong opinioned though, it doesnt change anything. Cinadon36 11:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted changes from BC to BCE, citing the WP:ERA guideline. "BC" is the original as I gather from earliest edits. Of course if there's a consensus to change it -- which I hope would be a separate thread on this talk page -- guidelines can be overridden. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Richard asr (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: As long as they both denote the same year, it is not a big deal.Cinadon36 14:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cinadon36, I have added a sentence of my own to the first paragraph of the section Religion, since the statement 'there was no organised religion...' in Ancient Greece is surely misleading. The plays of Aristophanes, for example, were written for the city Dionysia, the festivals of Dionysus, and many walked every year to Eleusis to attend the mysteries there, and of course to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Richard asr (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Richard asr: Goodmorning Richard, it really depends on the context given to organized religion. Since you are explaining what you mean by it, at your edit, it is fine. But in any case, I am adding a part of text from McPherran 2013, which is an expert on the specific field (relation of Socrates to religion)

The distinct phenomena we designate by using terms such as ‘religion’ and ‘the sacred’ were, for Socrates and his contemporaries, seamlessly integrated into everyday life. 16 Moreover, no ancient text such as Homer’s Iliad had the status of a Bible or Koran, and there was no organized church, trained clergy or systematic set of doctrines enforced by them. What marked out a fifth century BCE Greek city or individual as pious ( hosios ; eusebēs ) – that is, as being in accord with the norms governing the relations of humans and gods – was therefore not primarily a matter of belief, but rather, correct observance of ancestral tradition. 17 The most central of these activities consisted in the timely performance of prayers and sacrifices. 18 Such sacrifices ranged from an individual’s libation of wine at the start of a meal to the great civic sacrifices of cattle held on the occasion of a religious festival, culminating in a communal banquet that renewed the ties of city-protecting deities with the citizenry through the mechanism of the shared meal (a portion of meat being set aside as a burned offering for the gods; see e.g. Od. 3.418–472). Besides such activities designed to ensure the favour of a divinity, however, we must also set those other rituals that aim to harm, not help, others; in particular, curses ...

Your edit is in the spirit of the source. Cinadon36 07:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Richard asr:, I think that we are WP-voicing a controversial issue here[1]. Some scholars, mostly mediaval arabs, did argued that Socrates believed in reincarnation, but modern scholars are not so definite about it. Maybe it would be wise to avoid a positive statement on Socrates belief. Also, I do not know why, most scholars use the word "transmigration" of soul, instead of reincarnation. I do now know why, they are synonyms as far as I can tell. Cinadon36 07:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36:, that's fine, just edit anything of mine you think needs changing. I just thought the sentence as it stood seemed controversial, not to say wrong, without some clarification. Richard asr (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am watching your edits anyway, when you are done, I will start editing, so there wont be any edit conflicts. Cinadon36 08:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent strategy! Richard asr (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: I think I've been through it all now. Over to you. I can have a final read through it when you are happy with the text, just for a light, final run through, and take the article from the GOCE Requests page then. Does this sound sensible? Richard asr (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Richard asr:, you rock! I think we are fine, we can take the article from GOCE request page. Cinadon36 08:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. Many thanks for a very enjoyable read. I have thoroughly enjoyed copy editing this. Richard asr (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard asr (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Richard asr, we should be using Socrates's per MOS:POSS czar 01:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought so too at first, but Ancient Greek figures seem to be an exception. New Hart's Rules: Handbook of style for writers and editors says, 'It is traditional to use an apostrophe alone after classical names ending in s or es ' and cite this as an exception to the general rule. Wikipedia articles on Heracles, Sophocles, Euripides, Diogenes and Aristophanes all conform to this 'apostrophe alone' style, as I've checked. Conforming with these is perhaps preferable to going it alone. Richard asr (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A discussion last month on biblical/classical names reaffirmed the MoS position (to use the extra "s"). You can make your case there if you'd like but consensus appears to be quite solid on our internal position. Yes, this would mean that some of your named examples would need some love to become compliant. czar 01:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You are perfectly at liberty to make these changes if you like. My vote would be to use apostrophe alone, to conform with broader English usage for the classics and similar Wikipedia articles. Richard asr (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Czar:, I can not see any valid reason within the WP's philosophy, for preferring a centralized MoS instead of following the Style favored by Reliable Sources. Seems unwikipean in my eyes. Anyway, I will add an extra "s" if it is necessarily. Cinadon36 11:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

done Cinadon36 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Marriages

He married once or twice; one of his marriages was with Xanthippe when Socrates was in his fifties; the other one might have been with the daughter of Aristides, an Athenian statesman.{{sfnm|1a1=Ober|1y=2010|1p=161|2a1=Vasiliou|2y=2013|2p=33}}

I wasn't able to verify the source as written. Vasiliou doesn't appear to address this topic and Ober doesn't mention any doubt as to the second marriage or that Socrates was in his fifties, so that would need additional sourcing. I was looking to link to Myrto somewhere within the article, moving the link from the See also section, but she isn't mentioned by name in Ober. czar 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Czar:, firstly I 'd like to thank you for your c/e. At Ober 2010 "One marriage (the order is disputed by the ancient sources) was to a woman with the aristocratic name Xanthippe. The other marriage, according to tradition, was without dowry, to a daughter of the distinguished Athenian statesman Aristides (nicknamed “the Just”)." There are multiple sources citing this, but I do not feel like verifying too much. As I understand, the claim that Socrates was married to Myrto, can be found in Aristotle dialogue. (See Moore, at Brill's companion to reception of Socrates) I do not want to dig further, because article should focus to Socrates philosophy, not gossip. Many RS do not even mention Myrto.Cinadon36 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Would it suffice to cover it briefly then, proportionate to the sources? We have an article on Myrto, whose notability is on the basis of association with Socrates, so at least a brief in-text mention would seem warranted in the section on Socrates's personal life. And I know Ober didn't mention her by name, per your quote, but others do. czar 19:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if Myrto is notable, tbh. I feel we over-mentioning Myrto in this article. She is mentioned on a caption as well. Cambridge and Bloomsburry companion to Socrates do not even mention her. She is mentioned in books/chaptes when there is discussion on the reception of Socrates during Renaissance. So, adding more info on her, would seem undue weight.Cinadon36 19:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether Socrates had a second wife has received at least two articles (added to Myrto bibliography), so if those contents do not fit within the main article (and I would suspect they don't), it makes sense to keep an independent article on the topic, no matter what it's titled. For this article's purposes, perhaps the caption is enough. I closed out of my windows now but I believe it was Guthrie who said that the reports of his second marriage were likely erroneous. If that is the case, we're better off saying so instead of that he had "one or two" marriages. czar 21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Nothing written by him has survived"

This content of this article has changed a lot during copy editing...

Socrates did not document his teachings and nothing written by him has survived.

I thought Socrates didn't write? czar 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: do you have access to Guthrie? Page 6, note1, says he hasn't writen anything philosophical. He wrote a hymn to Apollo and some other lyrics. Guthrie cites Anton-Hermann Chroust's work on Socrates. Should we rephrase to make it more accurate? (but do not add trivia info on the other hand...)Cinadon36 06:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have a copy en route. :) For the first sentence of the article, I think it would suffice to cut it back down to: "Socrates did not document his teachings." And if there is a spot later to go into his stance on writing and what he actual wrote (and what survives today), it would make more sense at that time. czar 06:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable. Will do. Did [2] Cinadon36 07:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sophocles?

Hi, section 1.2 on sources has this sentence: "Unfortunately, this characterization of Sophocles in Clouds is the only one that survives today". There isn't much about Sophocles in the Socrates-article, and as a control, not much in the article on "Clouds" either. Is this a typo, or just my abysmal ignorance leading to confusion? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Typo. There is not Sophocles in the source either. Thanks mate. Will remove. Cinadon36 12:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thx. For the sake of clarity: AFAICS the information which was supposed to be expressed was that "although Aristophanes had Socrates appear in several comedies, the Clouds is the only one that has been preserved" - just that someone's philosophical spellchecker had changed "Socrates" into "Sophocles". Now, although an error is corrected, information is lost, too. Idk if that information was important or not; if it is, perhaps it would have been enough to change "Sophocles" back into "Socrates" again? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)