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


I've changed the dates of his birth and death. You should check the Stanford entry (external links).

Weird redirect[edit]

The Phanto link redirects to a list of video-game characters (specifically, List of Mario series enemies). I am sure that Greek philosophers did not teach video game characters. What is the reason for the link? Someone the Person 23:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the link is that "Phanto" is an enemy in the Mario series of games. Anyway, I've fixed it - I created a page on Phanto of Phlius, although, rather like the computer game character, I suspect that there isn't much to say about the chap. Singinglemon (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Philolaus has two entries on Wikipedia[edit]

Someone seems to have created a second page on Philolaus: Philolaus of Croton. Can someone who knows something about 5th century Pythagoreanism see if there is anything worth merging from that page into this one? Singinglemon 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I love about Wikipedia, if you point out an error, you get an immediate rush of enthusiastic volunteers all eager to fix the problem. At least, I guess that's what would have happened if this had been the episode guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer or something. :-) Anyway, I've now moved stuff over from Philolaus of Croton and redirected the page to this one. Singinglemon (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Platonic solids and the elements[edit]

I removed the following paragraph from the page. It's apparently the last substantial bit of the 1911 Britannica article which originally made up this page:

Philolaus was deeply involved in the distinctively Pythagorean number theory, dwelling particularly on the properties inherent in the decad – the sum of the first four numbers, consequently the fourth triangular number, the tetractys – which he called great, all-powerful, and all-producing. The great Pythagorean oath was taken by the sacred tetractys. The discovery of the regular solids is attributed to Pythagoras by Eudemus, and Empedocles is stated to have been the first who maintained that there are four classical elements. Philolaus, connecting these ideas, held that the elementary nature of bodies depends on their form, and assigned the tetrahedron to fire, the octahedron to air, the icosahedron to water, and the cube to earth; the dodecahedron he assigned to a fifth element, aether, or, as some think, to the universe. This theory, however superficial from the standpoint of observation, indicates considerable knowledge of geometry and gave a motivating boost to the study of science.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article [1] on Philolaus states that of the various fragments and testamonia, approximately 11 fragments and 15 testamonia are accepted as genuine, and 15 fragments and 6 testamonia are accepted as spurious (with just a few pieces disputed). I'm pretty sure this stuff about geometry and the elements isn't in any of the accepted fragments, and I assume it's from some pseudonymous Platonizing source which is no accepted as being genuinely Philolausian. The long SEP article certainly makes no mention of this doctrine. Singinglemon (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source Parts of the quote appear valid, and parts are covered on related sites. But everything should be cited per the original source.prokaryotes (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Prokaryotes. Yep one needs to be very careful about adding anything on Philolaus from old (100-year+) sources. Victorian scholars were much less critical about ancient Greek texts and tended to accept ancient testimony with little questioning. This is certainly true about Philolaus. Since the mid-20th-century scholars have become much better about picking apart ancient sources and determining which are genuine and which are later fabrications as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article makes clear. Much of what the EB1911 says about his philosophy is probably the later fabrications. (This article could probably do with a section mentioning the spurious texts). The entry in William Smith's dictionary may be more reliable since it barely mentions Philolaus' philosophy at all. BTW I ought to point out that William Smith didn't write most of the entries in his dictionary. The "Philolaus" entry was written by "Charles Peter Mason" (hence the "C.P.M" initials at the end of the article). Pasicles (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Pasicles, good info, and do you think we should mention CPM then? Btw i also read Clark 89. Other than that do you can recommend a read, maybe something with new findings, or did nothing change? I started to read the Stanford entry, but the references are a bit scarce, at least inside the text. prokaryotes (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
To answer my own question, here is something new prokaryotes (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of date formats[edit]

Whoever put the message at the top of the talk page didn't ask any other editors for their opinion and thus violated WP:ERA. If there are no objections, then I propose the reversion of date formats from BCE/CE to BC/AD with reference to the last major edit of the article with the proposed date format as the dominant one. (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)