Talk:Plato

Old talk (up to July 2004)

I

The original title of the book known IN ENGLISH as The Republic has nothing to do with elective government. The Greek word was Politeia, a word that translates fairly well as "Regime" or "sytem of government." Don't go all un-neutral on the book in the entry. I don't like Plato's ideal state either, but the title "Republic" is Cicero's, I think. --MichaelTinkler

Not sure what the old text to which this refers was like. But if anyone wants to dispute the accuracy of my characterization of the political system in the so-caleed Republic, please do. Dandrake 01:58 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I see no reason to have "Complete works of Plato" as a separate topic; it should be a subpage. If the actual works are entered into the Wikipedia later, they may also be subpages of Plato. --AV

The should be against webpages. If we were to have made every topic that could be made a subtopic of a main topic, we'd have a disaster on our hands. Don't you think that it's interesting that most of the Wikipedia old hands are solidly against subpages? You're new here, Anatoly--you probably don't understand entirely, yet. --LMS

II

More arguments on why "Complete works" should be a subpage: Larry, both in Naming conventions and in your essay on subpages, the only reason advanced against subpages is that the topic of the subpage may be of independent interest rather than totally subsumed within the topic of the page.

I do not have just one reason. I have three essays that address the issues surrounding subpages.

I'm soon going to start pushing hard to eliminate subpages entirely. I'm going to ask that they be completely eliminated from the PHP wiki.

Now, in this particular case, I feel strongly that you're pushing it too far. What else do you need "Complete works of Plato" for if not in the context of Plato??

The context of "complete works of philosophers." The context of works, generally. The context of philosophical texts. Etc.

Just about the only conceivable alternative is that of some general "Complete works of various authors" page with links to individual pages. But, first, the idea is rather ridiculous anyway, and, secondly, there's nothing stopping us from linking to subpages from outside the main page in case it's needed.

Why does there have to be a page that links to the complete works of all authors? I'm not sure what the use of that would be, actually.

OTOH, I believe that you fail to consider the benefit of proper subpaging.

I think you don't sufficiently appreciate why they're so evil.

It's not just about hierarchies, though it's about that; it's also about reducing the clutter in the main namespace,

This is not a problem, though. The sheer number of pages is going to be identical.

and reducing the number of ad hoc naming schemes. When you introduce something like "Complete works of Plato" as a name of an encyclopaedia topic, the readers will assume that it's a part of a general scheme, "Complete works of X" - but if there's only one or a few topic of this kind, then you're cluttering the conceptual field of the main namespace.

I don't see how using subpages avoids the same "problem." I don't quite understand how it's a problem in the first place, anyway.

What this means is that you give the readers another concept of how topics might be named (not just "X" or "History of X" or "the problem of X" or whatever, but now also "Complete works of X"), but the concept isn't really put to good use.

Why not? What's wrong with that concept?

Actually, I do think "X's works" would be better, but we don't have the use of apostrophes yet. Plato's works is where this information should be filed.

Finally, subpaging in such cases naturally helps establish better linking. This page already had a backlink to Plato; I removed it when I moved it to a subpage and you failed to restore it when moving it back. But ideally it shouldn't have a link to Plato because the connection to Plato is entirely obvious from the title itself. The backlink adds no useful information whatsoever, forms no new associations or connections. When it's moved to a subpage, the arrangement suddenly becomes much better: the backlink is now part of the general linkbar, an automatic feature of the subpage mechanism, and it draws no unnecessary attention of a reader. When it's needed, it's there; where it's not needed (in the body of the article), it's not.

This is an advantage, but it is an extremely weak one. One could make the same argument with regard to any plausible parent page-subpage pairing; but that by itself isn't a sufficient reason to make the subpage a subpage of the parent page. To be consistent, we would have to start making zillions of subpages of all sorts of topics, with no rhyme or reason, and setting up all sorts of conceptual relations and hierarchies that limit how we think and write about various topics. Besides, subpage titles are just plain ugly and cumbersome to deal with when linking to them from outside the main page-subpage article grouping. (As I've explained in my essays.)

I await with interest your response to these points. --AV

Keep working on the project for a few months and then see how you feel about subpages. I'm going to start an article about this in Wikipedia commentary--I'm going to raise the issue that we should entirely eliminate subpages from the new PHP wiki code, and convert foo/bar page titles in the present wiki to foo--bar in the new wiki. --LMS

III

I'm not Larry, but I'll point out that the page already had notes about textual history (by or not by Plato), a subject worth a page. --MichaelTinkler

About textual history of Plato's works, not textual history as a separate subject. And sure, it's worth a page, only there's no reason for this page not to be a subpage -- AV

Again, you assume that the presumption should be in favor of subpages, which it definitely shouldn't be. --LMS

V

The following appears to be an idiosyncratic polemic on the part of someone who is not familiar with our NPOV policy. I'll salvage from it what I can that is consistent with the policy, but a lot of it appears to me to be little more than bald statement of opinion with not a lot of useful informational content. The notion that Aristotle is responsible for the ignorance of Plato's works for so long strikes me as extremely implausible on its face and certainly not something that should be stated so (ironically) dogmatically in an encyclopedia article. --Larry Sanger

This is unfortunate since it has long been recognized that Aristotle's criticisms of his teacher, Plato, are based on an extremely faulty understanding and gross misrepresentation of Plato's thought, involving a complete mischaracterization of Plato's positions on virtually all of the critical issues central to his philosophy. Whether this betrayal of his teacher, Plato, was due to simple jealousy or a pathological desire to diminish Plato's reputation in order to elevate his own, this represents a severe stain on the reputation of Aristotle. As an indirect result of Aristotle's influence, it might be argued, Plato's work was lost to western civilization for many centuries.

Aristotle's philosophy has often been regarded as the basis of all subsequent philosophical dogmatism and as the source of the decline (and even eradication) of rational inquiry particularly during the Dark Ages. This is paradoxical since Aristotle is popularly (though, it might be argued, incorrectly) linked with an empirical approach to science. Believing as he did that scientific issues--from the laws of the universe to the functions of animals--could be settled by abstract logical reasoning rather than careful study and direct observation, and that all possible knowledge of the universe and man had already been attained leaving nothing fundamentally new for scientific or psychological or artistic discovery, Aristotle's philosophy lent itself to a variety of dogmatic systems from the ideas of the Scholastics in the Middle Ages to the dogmatic attitude of the followers of Ayn Rand today who believe that Aristotle's principles constitute the unquestionable basis of all philosophical reasoning and inquiry.

Aristotle's unrelenting dogmatism is entirely in contrast to the most fundamental principles of Plato and his beloved teacher Socrates, both of whom taught that man is in a state of almost complete ignorance concerning both natural phenomena and transcendent truths due to a congenital near-blindness to truth and knowledge. Above all, Plato affirmed Socrates’ teaching that the wisest man is the one who is most aware of his own ignorance. If we are ignorant and think that we have knowledge, this belief constitutes the worst form of sickness to which the human mind is subject. On the other hand, if we are ignorant, and also aware of our ignorance, this tends to create in us a profound desire to discover what we do not know--however limited our capacities may be.

It was only with the repudiation of Aristotelian scientific, artistic and psychological dogma and authority and the resumption of the outlook of Socrates and Plato who professed ignorance rather than infallible powers for abstract knowledge of nature and reality, that the Renaissance and the development of modern science were made possible. For it required a repudiation of Aristotelian dogmatic principles for the sciences and the arts to free themselves for the discovery of modern scientific laws and empirical methods. Many of the greatest modern scientists (e.g. Galileo) and artists (with the support of the Plato-inspired Lorenzo de Medici) who broke with Scholasticism and fostered the flowering of the Renaissance saw Plato’s philosophy as the basis for progress in the arts and sciences.

One of the characteristics of the Dark Ages was reliance on authority and on scholastic commentaries on writings of Plato and other historically important philosophers, rather than accessing their original works. In fact, Plato’s original writings were essentially lost to western civilization until their reintroduction in the twelfth century through the agency of Arab scholars who had maintained the original Greek texts of the ancients. These were eventually translated into Latin and all of Plato's surviving dialogues are now available in English translation.

In Plato’s writings, many centuries before Copernicus and Galileo, one finds the heliocentric theory of the universe. One finds debates concerning republican and democratic forms of government, long before the founding fathers of America formed their republic. One finds debates concerning the role of heredity and environment in human intelligence and personality long before the publication of “The Bell Curve” or the formation of Human Genome Project or the discovery that schizophrenia has a genetic basis. One finds arguments for the subjectivity--and the objectivity--of human knowledge which foreshadow modern debates between Hume and Kant, or between the postmodernists and their opponents.

Plato looks ugly in the picture,I think it should be removed.

For more information on the conflict between Aristotle and Plato and their followers: http://www.platonicforms.com/

VI

I've removed this sentence as it tells me nothing that could not apply to many other historical figures: The actual existence of Socrates is still debated, as little direct evidence proves his existence. There appears to be some evidence of his existence, but this gives no mention of who might be debating. -Wikibob | Talk 20:34, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

VII

Where in Plato's writings does one find the heliocentric universe? I'd like to find what he actually said about it. None of the other articles that mention the subject attribute the idea to Plato. Dandrake 18:58, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

There are allusions to it in the Nomoi.

MWAK--217.122.44.226 13:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking through http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.7.vii.html (admittedly without great thoroughness), I find a couple of mentions of the "revolutions of the sun and moon", but no more. As that's not heliocentric, what am I missing? Dandrake 00:22, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

It all starts with a remark from Plutarch, that Plato in his latter days began to regret that he hadn't set the Earth in its appropriate place. A cryptic remark. Predictably philologists have turned Plato's later works upside down in search of any clue to its meaning. Some very ingenious theories have been construed, none of them very cogent. Im my opinion the best of these is based on the Nomoi (893a e.s.) where Plato propounds the theory that God drives the Kosmos as a wheel is driven by its axis. At first blush this seems to accord with a geocentric model. Further reflection however shows that there is something wrong here: it would mean that the Earth, hardly a blessed place in Plato's view, is either the most direct physical representation of God or the point of His most direct intervention. So, if Plato is coherent, this centre of the Kosmos cannot be the Earth. It's obvious it isn't the Sun either. The model isn't really heliocentric but theocentric. The Sun moves in circles. Around the Earth? A hierarchy seems to suggest itself. God is in (a single point in?) the centre. The Sun, singled out in the text, moves around God. Even lesser gods (the planets) in their turn move around the Sun (whose solar system thus forms an imitative microcosm), as does the Earth (apparently the body of a very minor, or even corrupted god or alternatively a simple lump of rock hurled about following the principle of 899a). The Moon moves around the Earth. Circles galore. Such a model would have been very attractive to Plato, who saw physical reality as an instance of eternal Laws that were coherent and simple (or elegant). At this time the retrograde motion of the planets must have become an embarrasment - as is shown by Eudoxos tackling the problem. Plato knew Philolaos and must have understood the relevance of a non-geocentric model in this respect: it would "save the phenomena" and the elegance of natural law of his beloved circles. Also it would have been an elegant explanation of the connection of Venus and Mercury with the Sun, that Plato was well aware of, as shown by the Timaios. So perhaps.

Perhaps Plato merely thought that the Earth, though in the centre, turned around its axis (again see 893c), like Herakleides did. This alone would make the movement of the planets much more simple. It would also fix the problem of the movement of the fixed stars. The text conspicuously shows an absence of "spheres" even though the Kosmos is a sphere. The theocentric model above would also need a rotating Earth to explain the apparent rotation of the whole around us while it in reality revolves around God.

Perhaps Plato simply isn't coherent here. It happens to the best.

Perhaps Plutarch wanted to suggest the opposite: that Plato in his youth was a follower of Philolaos' "hestiacentric" model. The theocentric model allows for a hestiacentric interpretation also, with the Sun and all the planets (directly) moving around God.

Perhaps Plutarch didn't know what he was talking about and we're all on a wild goose chase. However recent interpretations of his De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet have hailed him as the Newton of Antiquity so you can't be too careful...;o)

MWAK--217.122.44.226 14:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Famous Platonists

Some scholars have argued that Galileo was a Platonist, but the idea is far from generally accepted. (Actually, it's wrong, but that's not germane here.) The straight-up claim that G was inspired by P doesn't belong in this article; at least, not without discussion here, or even better on the Galileo Talk page. So it has been removed. Dandrake 03:53, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Good; if Galileo is a Platonist, it is in the special mathematical sense of the term. He was expressly opposed to eternity and changelessness as goods; consider the passage about diamonds and potting soil in Dialogue on the Tow World Systems. Septentrionalis 03:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Popper on Plato

Re: "I like my version better"

Poppererian scholarship on Plato is just not that significant. Popper's reputation as a political philosopher never really recovered from his ad hominem assault on Hegel, his ill-informed scholarship on Marx, and his efforts to blame everything bad in the history of politics on Plato. I think we're misinforming people if we give the impression that Popper's attack on Plato is really a major issue in understanding Plato as a political philosopher. Plato as totalitarian is not something Popper started and is an idea most students are introduced to without reference to Popper. Popper was a major figure - if not the major figure - in the philosophy of science. But he is not someone who is taken very seriously in Plato scholarship and has most certainly not "eclipsed" Plato. That would be like making Rush Limbaugh out to be a major American cultural critic.

Plato has his opponents. Either there should be a more balanced discussion of them or we should simply refer readers to The Republic.

Diderot 05:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I didn't say Popper had eclipsed Plato. If you can find a better originator for the criticism, please put it in.

Thomas Thorson (Plato: Totalitarian or Democrat, 1963) points out that this view of Plato had wide circulation in Europe starting the early 30's, particularly in the kinds of socialist and borderline socialist communities that Popper circulated in. For crying out loud, Plato's political critics date back to his own favourite students. Aristotle, who carefully distinguished his notions of moral right from politics and was dead against the unrestricted state power he saw Plato advocating; and Xenophon, who essentially founded economics in his Oikonomikos just to prove his ex-prof wrong. Nietzsche found Plato's politics replusive, and said so, claiming that Plato's conception of utopia was "boring".

Popper may have been the first to link Plato to the word totalitarian, but that would most likely be because in the early 40's when he wrote The Open Society and its Enemies it was still a fairly new word. Criticism of Plato's Republic as essentially tyrranical dates back, depending on how you want to look at it, to the begining of the era when freedom was considered a good thing - roughly 300 years ago - or as far back as the fourth century to the early Christians' attacks on the neoplatonic Gnostics, if you want to include a theological defense of the non-perfectibility of man as a defense of human freedom. (e.g., the freedom to sin)

To his credit, Popper does not claim to have invented "Plato the Totalitarian." His original contribution is the claim that everything is Plato's fault. However, response to Popper's claims about Plato's legacy are pretty negative. For that reason, I'm removing the word "convincing".

(William M. Connolley 16:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) At the moment, the response-to-Popper stuff is terribly vague - nothing more than assertion. It needs to be firmed up, though poss within popper pages. The stuff about aristotle is prob worth adding somewhere, on your authority. However, the very early stuff is largely irrelevant to that section, which is a history of plato scholarship. Assuming it is correct when it says popper etc "diverge from traditional views", then the start of this appears to be 1930's and this should be said: there was a major revision of opinion of platos poltics beginning then. If all Nietzsche said was that platos utopia was boring then his claims to have started this were weak. I've not read nay N, but there is nothing about Plato on his wiki page.

A great deal about Plato in Nietzsche (mostly expressed as opinions on Socrates, but that's a formalism). Doubt it had much influence on the later criticism, though. (And where's Russell: History of Western Philosophy?) Septentrionalis 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

odd timeline etc

First, Aristotle commentors often make the case that it was the scholastics who were dogmatic with what were only notes for discusion, that dialogue was his true means and that he was anything but dogmatic himself. Try reading him from that perspective and you will probably be able to find some gems.

Now this timeline... I'm not sure about parts. Please correct it if you can. But first... Aristotle's "the Athenean Constitution" (qv) tells a tale of great struggles between two parties, let's call them "aristos" and " demos". Alcibiades was saved by Soc ( who got to know Thucydides rather well at that battle apparently...) and party of aristos was a Very busy boy. Eugenics was revived in the US, with its race problems ( slaves and the genocide of the first Americans, interesting subject that ) and now there is all this damn Leo Straussian crapola as we enter a period of declining resources ( OIL ). So there are some rather important reasons to getting this old stuff right and getting the message out.

True?:

404 -- Plato is convinced by his relatives to enter politics. (In OTL, he distances himself from politics because of the catastrophes of the Peloponnesian War, but in this ATL, there is still hope.)

~ Darius II of Persia dies, prompting Egypt to rebel under the leadership of Amyrtaeus of Sais, who founds the 28th Dynasty.

PLATONIC PERIOD

395 - 348 BC -- Plato is elected Strategos of Athens and begins his program of transforming the Delian League into his own vision of a philosophical state. He introduces an examined civil service, founds a standard of education through the Academia, and reorganizes the League's military into cohesive mixtures of recruits from various member states.

His social programs render the league citizens to resemble more the Spartan way of life, over time. Children come to be raised by the state from an early age into one of the three tiers of government: statesmen, soldiers, and laborers. This is determined by examination. Wealth becomes increasingly under the sole control of the state, and distributed according to its needs. Civil rights become increasingly eroded and the Democracy becomes a shell of its former self, since only those who were raised as statesmen-philosophers can take part in government.

Social turmoil in the Delian League becomes commonplace, but is quelled. As the state exercises more and more control over the lives of the people, these rebellions become less common.

390 -- The Athenians forge an alliance with the recently independent kingdom of Egypt. The Athenian commander Chabrias is dispatched with a fleet and army to help the Egyptians prevent reconquest from the Persians.

378 -- Plato writes his book, Sophiocracy, which reflects his plans for organizing into a government divided into 3 classes: philosopher-statesmen, militarists, and workers.

367 -- Dionysius the Younger succeeds his father as tyrant of Syracuse.

360 -- War between Egypt and the Persian Empire erupts due to the aggressive new pharaoh. Under the leadership of the Pharaoh Tachos (Djeho), Egyptian and Athenian forces invade Palestine with great success, penetrating all the way to Phoenicia. In response to this success, Cyprus revolts. The Athenians are quick to gain Cyprus as an ally, and by 355, it is admitted to the Delian League as a member.

For the first time in centuries, Egypt is once again an imperial power, thanks to the military and financial support of the Delian League while the Athenians gain trade interests along the Eastern Mediterranean coast.

357 - 336 BC -- Syracuse enters a tumultuous civil war when Dionysius the Younger is challenged by his uncle, Dion. Dion is able to defeat Dionysius in 354 but is later assasinated by Timoleon, a Corinthian who was in Dion's military service, who, in 344, solidifies his control by requesting help from the Peloponnesian League. Help comes just in time to route a new Carthaginian assault in Sicily. The result of the affair is that Syracuse joins the League as a formal member in 336.

350 -- The Athenians become distracted from the Macedonian War, by coming to the aid of the Egyptians once again when the Persians, under the cruel Artaxerxes III, attack again, in an attempt to recapture Egypt. At the battle of Sidon, the Persians are only repulsed with great losses on both sides.

348 -- Plato dies of natural causes. The attrition in the Phoenician expedition as well as Plato's death causes the Athenians to lose their resolve in the war. The Thebans unsuccessfully try to make gains in Thessaly against Philip II but no longer have the ingenuity to do so, ever since the death of Epaminondas.

345 -- Demosthenes is elected to Strategos and continues much of the policies of Plato. The Academia becomes the effective residence of the Strategos.

340 - 336 BC -- Latin War. Rome's Latin allies fight a war of independence, dragging the Campanians in as allies. As Rome begins to overcome the revolt, the Campanians request the help of the Peloponnesian League. The Syracusans and Spartans send aid that eventually turns the tide of the war against the Romans. As a result, Rome is defeated and ceases to be a major power in Italy. The Campanians are eventually brought in as allies and join the Peloponnesian League in 331 BC.

Huxley might fit in here too.

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Ancient_Greece

There is a hell of a lot going on in this period, yet it is incredibly easy to read a few books and think one understands.

Note that for several millenia the problem of the state was resolved by dictatorship, oligarchy and/or fuedalism. Democratic "forces" were the conspirators. 200 years ago the balance shifted leading to the rise of anti democratic conciousness. WW2 was the supposed triumph of democracy and self-determination, against the revanchement of the "aristos". The really sad part is the mediocrity, the mental incapcity, of those who use the power of industrial revolutions to play out their pathological games of superiority when the only thing in which they excell is "attitude" , that and Toynbee's mimesis foreshadow a crisis of immense proportions. Also, Medici were Platoid, several popes were Medici, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" for them (Galileo was their court philosopher). WblakesxWblakesx

---

Wow, that's a neat one. Galileo wasn't even a Platonist, contrary to some philosophers' claims, as I noted above. Even if he were, what in hell does his work have to do with the efforts of the arstocracy to put down us good guys? Perhaps you're confusing him with that old genocidal Newton? [If you haven't run into that bit of mad pseudo-feminism, congratulate yourself on your luck.] Dandrake 00:32, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Dan, a slight revision of the last sentence... Good guys? that might be an anachronism, after all the athenian demos weren't particuarly just, but apparently he has been used to support later ( and present ) faux elites. But why latch on to parenthesis when there is a larger question? WblakesxWblakesx

---

I've got to cut waay back on my attempts at facetiousness. As you say, Athenian demos weren't all that clearly good, and the phrase was my attempt at a joke about identifying them and [whoever it was in Galileo's time] and our democratic selves (whom I do see as good guys).

Anyway, why I picked up on a parenthesis: I always say on newsgroups that if you're going to drop little obiter dicta in your posting, you have to be prepared to defend them. Galileo is a subject I know something about, and it's far from clear to me that the person who shocked the Old Guard by writing serious science in Italian for the middle class to read was a philosopher of aristocratic oppression—even if he did work for an aristocrat. On the other hand, I really don't know that much about Plato—just enough to have inserted a comment on his great political classic—so I'm not sticking myself into the larger and more important question. Cheers, Dandrake 01:20, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've attempted to cleanup some of the flow of language of this page. However, I would like to know the following:

• All the known dialogues of Plato survive, however modern-day standard editions of his oeuvre generally contain dialogues considered by the consensus of scholars either suspect (e.g., Alcibiades, Clitophon) or probably spurious (such as Demodocus, or the Second Alcibiades).

• Please cite sources that detail this so people can independently verify what is being said.
• Why are Alcibiades and Clitophon considered suspect?
• Why are Demodocus or the Second Alcibiades considered spurious?
• Comment: this should be merged in with the main document and not in the introduction.

• I cleaned up the text There is a prominent crater on the Moon named the Plato crater, in his honor., however I suspect that this could be added as another section with a very brief summary of why it was named what it was named. Again, I don't believe that this should be in the introduction.
• I've updated the Plato#Biography section. Unfortunately, this isn't entirely complete. Where is the discussion of Plato and Dionysius of Syracuse and Dion, who he lusted after? Where is the discussion of Dionysius II and his attempt to make Plato a philosopher king? What about Plato's disillusionment with Athenian politics? Also, the biography has material that should be in writings - though the biography should probably cover when he wrote what texts and why.

• Also, the sentence It is suggested that much of his ethical writing is in pursuit of a society where similar injustices could not occur. uses a weasel term. Who suggests this?

• In the Plato#Work section:

• It reads and the question-and-answer style is more pro forma. Maybe I'm being a little dense here, but what exactly does this mean? Could we have a more clear definition?
• It is interesting to ponder the qualities of dialogue, for this makes the reader into an observer, rather than a recipient (the 'addressee' as it were), as would be the case with a non-dialogic presentation of beliefs. - peacock term! Surely this should be rewritten.

• (William M. Connolley) I cut that

• In this sense, scholars such as Massimo Verdicchio have referred to the 'rhetorical nature of truth'. Interesting I'm sure, but this idea needs to be expanded and I'd like to know where Massimo Vedicchio said this so I could verify it for myself along with read it in it's context. Also, who is Massimo Vedicchio? Why is he significant? I'd also like to know this sort of information because right now it seems like mere academic name-dropping.

• (William M. Connolley 20:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC))I cut that bit.

• In the section Plato#A short history of Plato scholarship:

• One of the characteristics of the Middle Ages was reliance on authority and on scholastic commentaries on writings of Plato and other historically important philosophers, rather than accessing their original works. - I'm confused. What does "One of the characteristics of the Middle Ages was reliance on authority and on scholastic commentaries", in particular the "Authority" part. What does this mean?
• By the 19th century Plato's reputation was restored and at least on par with Aristotle's. The paragraphs in the text before hand do not give any indication that Plato's reputation was sullied. This should be reflected in the text somehow!
• While many critics reject such readings on a variety of grounds, they remain widely discussed. - which critics? This is currently a weasel word style sentence.

• I've added a references section (I got my material for the Academy that Plato founded from "Plato: A Beginner's Guide"). See Wikipedia:Cite sources for more information.

Overall this article has heaps of potential and I believe that it can be expanded far more thoroughly. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I made some other changes to "Work". The assertion that the dialogues mean it never becomes a tract is wrong: see the laws for example. I moved "several characters discuss a topic by asking questions of one another" so it only applies to the early ones. The only later ones I've read (republic; laws) can just about be called dialogues but certainly the bulk of them is the lead characters opinions, not a discussion.

Shouldn't 'Letters' in Bibliography section link to something like 'Plato's Letters' instead of just 'Letters'? After all, if you click on 'Laws', you don't get (or, most likely, want) an explanation of laws as such, with no reference on Plato. This is analogous to 'Republic', too.

Biographical

I do not know much about Plato, but do you think that you could make the biography section a little more biographical and less like all of the other sections? Thanks.

Naming of Wikipedia articles on Plato's texts

Naming of articles treating Plato's dialogues seperately is confusing, I propose following renamings (per tetralogy):

note 1: Since

works marked (1) (scholars don't generally agree that Plato is the author)

and

works marked (2) (scholars generally agree that Plato is not the author of the work)

might lead to discussion if marked "(Plato)", I'd mark these "(dialogue)", except where these works are no dialogues.

note 2: I copy this proposition to Category Talk:Dialogues of Plato, and propose to have the discussion there

• I.
  • Euthyphro -> Euthyphro (Plato)
  • Apology -> Apology (Plato)
  • Crito -> Crito (Plato)
  • Phaedo -> Phaedo (Plato)
• II.
  • Cratylus (Plato) (OK!)
  • Theaetetus -> Theaetetus (Plato)
  • Sophist (Plato) (OK!)
  • Statesman (Plato) (OK!)
• III.
  • Parmenides (dialogue) -> Parmenides (Plato)
  • Philebus (Plato) (OK!)
  • Symposium (Plato) (OK!)
  • Phaedrus (Plato) (OK!)
• IV.
  • First Alcibiades (Plato) (1) -> First Alcibiades (dialogue)
  • Second Alcibiades (Plato) (2) -> Second Alcibiades (dialogue)
  • Hipparchus (2) -> Hipparchus (dialogue)
  • Rival Lovers (2) -> Rival lovers (dialogue)
• V.
  • Theages (2) -> Theages (dialogue)
  • Charmides (Plato) (OK!)
  • Laches (Plato) (OK!)
  • Lysis -> Lysis (Plato)
• VI.
  • Euthydemus (Plato) (OK!)
  • Protagoras (dialogue) -> Protagoras (Plato)
  • Gorgias (Plato) (OK!)
  • Meno -> Meno (Plato)
• VII.
  • Greater Hippias (1) -> Greater Hippias (dialogue)
  • Lesser Hippias -> Lesser Hippias (Plato)
  • Ion -> Ion (Plato)
  • Menexenus -> Menexenus (Plato)
• VIII.
  • Clitophon (1) -> Clitophon (dialogue)
  • Plato's Republic -> Republic (Plato)
  • Timaeus (Plato) (OK!)
  • Critias (Plato) (OK!)
• IX.
  • Minos (Plato) (2) -> Minos (dialogue)
  • Plato's Laws -> Laws (Plato)
  • Epinomis (2) -> Epinomis (dialogue)
  • Letters ((1) for some) -> Letters (Plato)

Remaining works (most of them considered spurious already in antiquity):

• Axiochus (2) (OK!)
• Definitions (Plato) (2) (OK!)
• Demodocus (2) (OK!)
• Epigrams (Plato) (OK!)
• Eryxias (2) (OK!)
• Halcyon (2) (OK?)
• On Justice (2) (OK!)
• On Virtue (2) (OK!)
• Sisyphus (Plato) (2) -> Sisyphus (dialogue) (or treating this work in the Sisyphus article?)

--Francis Schonken 13:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Translations

I do not recall, or believe, that the Islamic commentators preserved the Greek text of Plato, as the present article says. Citations would be welcome. Septentrionalis 03:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Aristotle from the Arabs, yes (not all - Boetius had translated some into Latin) but Plato? No. I think we have the Greek from Constantinople. What the Mediaeval Latins lacked was command of Greek, and only Calcidius partial translation of the Timaeus was generally available. Tracing which precise manuscripts Ficino worked from in making Plato's corpus available to the Latins is complicated and contentious. See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1994/94.01.07.html for an idea of this paper-chase.

For the general picture, see the Stanford Encycl. of Philosophy Section 3 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/

BibleRiot 18 July 2005

Glaucon

One of Plato's ancestors, Glaucon, was one of the best-known members of the Athenian nobility. If he was so famous, who was he? Plato's uncle is only famous for being the link between Plato and Critias; is his brother intended? And neither in an ancestor in English. Septentrionalis 19:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll (picture)

Visual interpretation of “Plato’s cave” by Dutch artist Nick Gabrichidze;

So What do you think of this picture?

• As initiator of this, I should repeat my comment: This is vivid and may be helpful. Septentrionalis 14:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's ok for now; we can find better. --goethean ॐ 03:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notable images of Plato have been produced for thousands of years across the world. We do not need to include one by an artist who wrote an article about himself and got on VfD. 172 07:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Shameless self promotion, pics of the artist(?) have been added by himself or suspected sockpuppets on a large number of articles. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• The picture we need is "School of Athens." This picture is lame. --Carl 08:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, here we go. Let's get a detail from this: --Carl 08:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

School of Athens is a great illustration of Plato himself, but I doubt it can be used as an illustration to the cave allegory, where Nick Gabrichidze's image fits. Basically both can be used, but I beleive some graphical material to help users understand the whole "Plato's cave" concept is neccesary. As a matter of fact we have an idea. The "Platos' cave" needs a seperate article defenetely,it is a seperate issue from Plato himslef. After all cave allegory was later used as a stepstone for many philosophers. May be some one can write "Plato's cave" article, or put a request for contribution(or we will take our time to write it ourselves) And then we move Nick Gabrichidze's painting to illustrate that alllegory, while the images of Plato and his biography will be kept here. So what do you hink? If no one willtake the time to create aseperate "Plato's cave" artickle till weekend w will do then, but none of us has time to write it till Saturday. Thanx for everyone for ideas.

Gabrichidze 11:51, 21 June UTC

Note to 172-wikipedia is not your private resourse. If you donot like the image which isdiscussed please share your opinion here instead of removing the whole content. The requiest for page protection will be filed if you will keep removing teh content without even discussing it with other users.

Gabrichidze 12:51, 21 June UTC

I support the removal of the Plato’s cave picture – and so it seems do most editors who expressed their opinion above. The image is useless as an illustration for those who are not already familiar with the concept, and it is not a notable illustration, either. Especially given these circumstances, no editor needs to discuss his intent to remove the image further before doing so. Rl 11:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As we wrote the best solution would be to move the image to the "Plato's allegory of the cave". If rl or anybody else will suggest a good image to illustrate cave allegory we will consder the other image as well. Anyway, it would be just polite to let poll run for at least a week and hen deside to keep image here or not. If after a week rough consensus will be against keeping the image here, then we will allow you to remove it, and will not post it back, we promice. If someone wants to engage in editors war instead of waiting a week so compromise can be found, then be my guest. It is true that anyone can delete a content in wikipedia without permission but note that anyone can also add content. We have had a disagreement with 172 about this part as he keeps seeing this additional image here as some visios intent from our side refusng to consider a good faith. Sad isn't it? Gabrichidze 13 : 44, 21 june UTC

If anyone is skilled in a graphics program, a simple diagram could be created. --goethean ॐ 14:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I inquired with User:Jossifresco in this regard. --goethean ॐ 14:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not think an adequate diagram of the cave would be simple; for one thing, it should represent the third dimension, so the shadows can be two-dimensional. But by all means let us see what someone can come up with. Septentrionalis 14:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a google image search turned up this. --goethean ॐ 15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, although it does not show the actual shadows...Septentrionalis 16:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think we should remove the picture. Paul August ☎ 14:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• (commenting yet again...) I don't mind the picture, but it seems totally improper for the creator of the picture to have inserted it into the article and to be replcing it after it was deleted, regardless of whether the deleter was anonymous or not. It really reeks of self-promotion. --goethean ॐ 15:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Why Goetahean? There are tons of people who are running around this resourse deleting parts of the articles they dislike or disagree with-why not to restore the content if you see it neccessary. The user who deleted this image is going around all material assotiated with this particular author which are posted at wikipedia and sistematically deleting them(check Flying dutchman history page,if you want to see adeletion of accurate image, or caucasophobia page andcheck whohad decorated it with tugs). So for us it is a pure illustration of unforchunate obsession which deleting the content created by particular user. We do not know what his motivation might be.

Anyway let's focus on image-as we have said if you have something else to offer or if you want to move it at "Cave" page then please do so.But please let's talk about the image and not about the motivation of the people who uploaded or removed it. And guys stop being so obsessed with this sef-promotion fear. Artist is contributing the image to this article, we help him to upload it with his agreement : if you think image is OK, please accept it. If you think that image can be used here than artist should receive at least a moral credit. What is your objection? Gabrichidze

My personal feeling is that the image is really, really ugly. No one can be blamed for removing it. But anyhow, let's make a Plato's cave page, so that we can put a "Influence on Pop culture" section in and talk about how the Matrix is a total rip off. --Carl 07:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At 28 I will be removing the image to "Plato's allegory of the cavepage" if he consensus here will be agaist the painting. Please let others have their say and try to avoid the editors war untill then. Gabrichidze

• Please note that the controversial picture is likely a copyvio, and is under investigation at WP:CP. Radiant_>|< 10:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Does the commitment of group of users(radiant,mikalai,chris73) who go around tons of pages icluding ones hey never been before(would it be surrealism, Plato, Polygamy or other) with only one mssion: to remove he material assotiated with one single particlar author look really normal? There is nothing wrong with copyright status for this image, the radiant made it up by his own Please check caucasophobia VfD and alk page to see how this unforchunate war had began. I seriousely doubt good faith. A

A highly developed aesthetic sense, constantly growing rich erudition, subtle intellect and cultured heart had an effect on Nick Gabrichidze’s work Elle20 12 : 05 pm, 28 June (UTC)