User talk:Mercer.philosophy

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

Socrates as author of the Divided Line[edit]

Hi Mercer,

Most, but not all of your changes to the [Analogy of the Divided Line] considerably degrade the contents. In particular, 1) English Wikipedia uses English titles, i.e. Timaeus, not the Greek title. 2) Your changing of 'Plato' to 'Socrates' is very wrong in the context of the article. The name of the puppet character is quite irrelevant when it comes to Plato's epistemology of the Republic.

Will you please reverse all your latest changes, with the exception of the Upper-lower case for the titles, which is great. BlueMist (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your compliments on our efforts. Yes, this is English Wikipedia and the title 'Timaeus' should, I agree, be in English. Revision has been made.

We feel the assertion that Socrates is a 'puppet character' to be too strong. Socrates was the master of Plato and Plato has written his dialogues as if it were Socrates who was the philosopher. We thought that since there is no solid evidence to the contrary, we should be charitable to Plato and assume that he strove to be as true to Socrates' teachings as was possible. Thus, while we of course must affirm that Plato is the author of the dialogues themselves, we think Socrates should be cited as the father of the philosophies at hand.

Mercer.philosophy (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is this "we" who decides to credit the philosophy of the greatest philosopher in history to his primary literary character?
I see no evidence that you are familiar with the prevailing secondary literature, according to which, only the 'Socratic' dialogues mirror the views of the historical philosopher Socrates.
The 'middle' and 'late' dialogues are deemed as Plato's original philosophy, with the literary character Socrates as the primary protagonist. The Republic belongs to the middle group.
Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence or reference that supports your personal, unorthodox views?
I am transferring this conversation to talk:Analogy of the Divided Line for public comments. BlueMist (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Analogy of the Cave may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • also known as the '''Allegory of the Cave''', '''Plato's Cave''' and the '''Parable of the Cave''')

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Apology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

These normally require discussion. Titles should be determined according to WP:COMMONNAME. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mercer.philosophy. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)