Jump to content

Talk:Plato

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.136.26.230 (talk) at 15:52, 8 October 2010 (→‎'Plato motto': "God is ever a geometer"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineePlato was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:FAOL

Plato a defender of slavery?

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

He most certainly does not... he explicitly sides against enslaving fellow greeks in the republic although opens the possibility for enslaving foreigners. This seems more a product of the time in the book and his rejection of enslaving other greeks seems to be the major point he makes on the topic and as such any reference to Plato as a supporter of slavery seems wrong - thepossumdance
Plato has since been removed from the category. It didn't make any sense for him to be there. Pollinosisss (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Sagan was of the opinion that Plato and Pythagoreans advocated a mind/body separation in order to justify slavery (your mind is free, not body), see COSMOS, Episode 7, "The Backbone of Night" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_966RzTF6k#t=4m42s 203.97.255.148 (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go out on a limb and say that Carl Sagan is not a reliable source on Plato. Or, if that is too harsh, I will say that his views on ancient Greek philosophy are so far outside of the mainstream that he falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. RJC TalkContribs 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

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

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

Academic Genealogy

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

Agreed. RJC TalkContribs 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plato or socrates

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

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

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

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

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

name and citizenship

There seem to be two details missing.

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

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

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

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

Typo in the Theory of Forms section

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

checkY Done RJC TalkContribs 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plato motto: "God is ever a geometer"

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

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

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

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

Dividing into early, middle, and late dialogues

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

I agree. -Pollinosisss (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt over the early-middle-late division waxes and wanes in scholarship, but nonetheless the division is almost always assumed in the vast majority of books and articles (perhaps with an excusing footnote) on Plato. The debate about its merit usually occurs in a small number of articles considering the specific topic of Plato's chronology. In any case, the early-middle-late division has been so prevalent over the years that these divisions have become ubiquitous place-markers for collections of Plato's dialogues, whether or not one thinks these collections pick out distinct chronological groups, distinct philosophical groups, or nothing distinct at all. E.g. authors write on what they call the 'early dialogues' or 'late Plato' so it's very hard to avoid talking about 'such-and-such's view of the early dialogues', even if one doubts that 'early' picks out anything special. The article, then, just reflects a messy part of Platonic scholarship and I'd say it's best leave it as it is. Otherwise Wikipedia would be the only introduction to Plato that I know of that doesn't use this division, which might itself make it run afoul of NPOV. --Dast (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting removing it from the article entirely, just scaling it back. It was the template that I suggested removing it from entirely. The consensus may wax and wane, but it seems to be in the wane stage right now. I will also say that I haven't seen this division repeated in political science journals, so they're not that ubiquitous. RJC TalkContribs 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if the early/middle/late division is entirely absent from poli sci journals, although it may be mentioned less often because poli sci doesn't often deal with later dialogues like Statesman and Laws. In classics and ancient philosophy the chronology of the dialogues is a basic part of discussion about Plato. "scaling back" the discussion in this article might be feasible—simply converting the lists to prose might help in terms of style and readability. I wouldn't support changing the template, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wincenty Lutoslawski

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

Nomination for merging of Template:Platonav

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

Plato as an anti-empiricist.

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

True, but western science is more than empiricism. Before one can say that empirical observations are the only way to gain knowledge about the world, one must already have established a kind of moral permission for intellectual skepticism. Plato was not the first to question things, but he did popularize the permissibility of philosophy like no one else. And to be fair, Plato rejects materialism; he does not say that one cannot learn about observable phenomena by observation, only that the most important things are not composed of atoms (ideas, for example). RJC TalkContribs 21:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that Plato certainly managed to 'popularise' a particular brand of philosophy like no-one else, but the specific ideas he promoted within that philosophy arguably did more to hinder the course of western science than to advance it. Yes, science is more than empiricism: there's also the method of controlled experiment, occam's razor, falsifiability, etc.- none of which are concepts that Plato particularly helped to promote. I would also argue that Plato's belief in promulgating 'noble lies'- politically convenient fictions intended for the unwashed masses to swallow unquestioningly- is hardly advancing the general cause of intellectual skepticism.
At any rate, I believe this would constitute a 'significant minority viewpoint'. For example, taken from Studies in Humanism By F. C. S. Schiller-
"Plato's Anti-empirical Bias leads to misconstruction of Protagoras and Heraclitus, and ultimately ruins Greek science."
"We must affirm, therefore, that Plato's anti-empirical bias renders him profoundly anti-scientific, and that his influence has always, openly or subtly, counter-acted and thwarted the scientific impulse, or at least diverted it into unprofitable channels... ...And so, wherever this hypostasization and idolatry of concepts, and wherever these interpose between the mind and things, wherever they lead to disparagement of immediate experience, wherever the stubborn rigidity of prejudice refuses to adapt itself to the changes of reality, wherever the delusive answers of an a priori dialectics leave unanswered questions of inductive research, wherever words lure and delude, stupefy and paralyse, there Truth is sacrificed to Plato, even by barbarians who have never heard his name."
I would furthermore submit that this would count as a reliable source under general wikipedia guidelines, i.e, "magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". http://www.prometheusbooks.com/
You can search the text itself here: http://books.google.com/books?id=KL3sROAk2rwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Studies+in+Humanism+By+F.+C.+S.+Schiller&source=bl&ots=LU_iSSvrrO&sig=si8k2LZul2fjkQTT0Xw83aARDLk&hl=en&ei=ZRdjTIiUOYaT4ga02aXOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA
89.204.253.121 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reliable source. I didn't mean to suggest that your skepticism was misplaced, merely that the statement (which is also sourced) is not clearly mistaken. RJC TalkContribs 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

verbose opening

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

unlock

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

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

Philosophy section confusingly written

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plato&oldid=389536097"