Talk:Pythagoras

Deleted content

He was the first man to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom. Many of the accomplishments of Plato, Aristotle and Copernicus were based on the ideas of Pythagoras. Unfortunately, very little is known about Pythagoras because none of his writings have survived. Many of the accomplishments credited to Pythagoras may actually have been accomplishments of his colleagues and successors.

I have deleted this.

The very first claim is specious at best, useless and confusing at worst: without being backed up by a clear primary source, there is no need to make a mention of it. It is also confusing, as we don't know whether a historical or a modern context is being put upon the term philosopher: 'philosophy' in the 6th Century BC referred to an investigator of natural principles (e.g. Thales, Anaximander, Democritus). Ipso facto, the person who wrote this may not be translating with a view to clarity: it would be far more clear for a reader today to be told that "he was the first man to call himself a scientist" or some other term approaching the idea of an investigator into nature. But even beside the contextual problems, why is this even noteworthy in an introductory paragraph? And is it true? Several other pre-Socratics approach calling themselves philosophers, as Heraclitus hints in writing that "men who are lovers of wisdom must be inquirers into many things." The second statement is a spill-over into the first statements mistake. Pythagoras had a strong influence upon Plato's metaphysics as well as later mathematicians and astronomers. That is not to say he made their achievements possible. The last two statements then contravene what the former two sentences have wagered. It is rather a mess.

I will keep this removed from the article until it is brought up to snuff or there is a robust reason for why it should be kept. across the synapse 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comment immediately above yours. Primary sources for Pythagoras as introducer of philosophos include: Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, 5.3.8-9, Diog. Laert. 1.12, 8.8, Iamblichus VP 58. I've added the citations to the article & done a modest bit of additional pruning to reflect your concerns about some of what is admittedly crap in what you removed. But be more careful & less confident with "specious at best" etc.—the primary source for philosophos was in fact already included in the article's first footnote! Wareh 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He was the first man to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom

I saw this scentence and was wondering if we could authoritatively state that, before Pythagoras, nobody in the world called themselves a philosopher or a lover of wisdom. Instead of such a blanket statement, I felt a scentence that mentions this within the context of the reference material or of the region would be right. Sudarshanhs (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He was the first man to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom

Actually, Pythagoras was the first to use the term 'philosophy.' Perhpas this could be used instead? Winderful1 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pythagoras in Miletos?

According to The Histories by the Herodotus, book V, chapter 126:

"126. This was the counsel of Hecataios; but Aristagoras was most inclined to go forth to Myrkinos. He therefore entrusted the government of Miletos to Pythagoras, a man of repute among the citizens, and he himself sailed away to Thrace, taking with him every one who desired to go; and he took possession of the region for which he had set out."

Herodotus mentions Pythagoras in his Book IV, chapter 92 as "Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchos". Therefore it looks like Pythagoras lived in Miletos, too. Do you know some other sources confirming/rejecting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.65.104 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Roles" of numbers in decad

I've removed this material, since it was unsourced, and the "roles" assigned to the numbers do not, by and large, agree with the epithets that appear in the Iamblichan Theology of Artithmetic (listed by David R. Fideler in Appendix II of Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library, ed. David R. Fideler [Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1987]). If a good source for the removed material exists, it can be readded. Deor (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Young man line?

According to the articule Pythagoras was a young man when Polycrates took over Samos yet according to the dates Pythagoras would have been about 30. Not really young.

572 B.C minus 538 B.C

~~Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.20.158 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First reference to Pythagoras in 2nd cent. CE?

This would explain the lack of reference to a man Pythagoras until 150 AD, given that he would have been of interest to contemporary philosophers (Aristotle referred to the so-called Pythagoreans).

What about Livy's (died 12/17 CE) mention of him? Roberts translation from Wikisource:

His master [Numa's] is given as Pythagoras of Samos, as tradition speaks of no other. But this is erroneous, for it is generally agreed that it was more than a century later, in the reign of Servius Tullius, that Pythagoras gathered round him crowds of eager students, in the most distant part of Italy, in the neighbourhood of Metapontum, Heraclea, and Crotona. (1.18)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.86.199 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And what about Heraclitus and Xenophanes--both contemporaries of Pythagoras who mentioned him (and apparently as a man--known to them by reputation if not in person):

[This book] (see p. 48 and following) goes into some depth about the references to Pythagoras in Xenophanes and some other contemporaries and near-contemporaries.

This paper talks about the Heraclitus/Pythagoras material:

“Heraclitus' Critique of Pythagoras' Enquiry in Fragment 129,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 (2008), 19‑47.

The paragraph on sources is undoubtedly correct that later sources invent the "classical Pythagoras" and attribute to him all sorts of improbable things. But it's goes a little overboard when it suggests there are no references at all to Pythagoras as a person early on--even contemporary.

Bhugh (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Herodotus mentions Pythagoras (Histories, iv. 95), as does Plato (Republic, 600 AB). I've removed the offending passage. Singinglemon (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pythagoras was phoenician, not greek!

he was not a greek. hes father is from tyre , a phoenician mercant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.10.252 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your source? BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 01:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Tetrachtys -> Tetractys

Perhaps Tetrachtys should be Tetractys? Bayle Shanks (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.8.244 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

HIS FATHER MNESARHUS IS A CLASSICAL GREEK NAME

King Arthur

Read the article on King Arthur. Nowhere is the Arthurian legend presented as fact. The legend was created in romances over half a millenium after he was said to have lived. Those writing it knew it so, even if they prefaced it with "the following is based on real events from real history", Dan Brown stylee. Of course, there may have been a dude called Arthur, and he may have been a King, but if so, the Arthurian legend is no more likely to contain correct biographical facts about historical Arthur than a treatise on the tomato. If there are any, it is coincidence, not good history.

And yet the biographical facts in this article on Pythagoras are presented with authority. 'Pythagoras lived at 34 Greek Street' , 'Pythagoras liked to cut his sandwiches into triangles', 'Pythagoras invented playing cards'. Nobody knows! The legend of the dude Pythagoras was created by romantics 500 years later. These guys knew they were doing so. The story of the bean eating hippy Pythagoras is certainly a popular one to repeat, but not a real history. If there was a dude Pythagoras in the Pythagoreans , you are about as likely to find correct biographical facts about him in the article King Arthur than in this one.

Most of this article should be moved to the Pythagoreans, which also needs some scepticism. The bean-eating hippy legend can be repeated, but not presented as truth. Wikipedia, writing something down does not make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt me (talk • contribs) 10:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarmoung Brotherhood

n Studies in Comparative Religion (Winter 1974), it is said that according to the Armenian book Merkhavat, the Sarmoung Brotherhood, also referred to as the 'Inner Circle of Humanity', originated in ancient Babylon circa 2500 BC,[2] at around the time the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid of Giza. The Ouspensky Foundation state that the brotherhood was active in the golden Babylonian time of Hammurabi (1728-1686 BC) and is connected with Zoroaster, the teacher of Pythagoras (born c. 580 BC–572 BC, died c. 500 BC–490 BC). According to the Foundation, Pythagoras stayed for twelve years in Babylon.[3]; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmoung_Brotherhood Wblakesx (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)