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. 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. Perhaps there should be links to Chrysoloras, Plethon and Argyropoulos too.

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)

Order of the Dialogues

Currently the Platonic dialogues are ordered into Thrasyllus' tetralogies. This is fine, even good: it is an historically important ordering and bypasses some messy debates about chronological orderings. However, there are some arguments in favour of also explaining and laying out the (or one proposed) chronological ordering of the dialogues (which is itself defended on mainly stylometric and thematic evidence):

• The vast majority of Platonic scholars today make use of the chronological ordering in their work.
• While a great deal of debate surrounds the exact chronological place of individual dialogues, there is general agreement about the larger chronological groupings - the early, middle and later groups of dialogues, and to a lesser extent the transitional dialogues (i.e. while there may be debate about whether the Euthyphro came before or after the Laches, both are generally agreed to be early dialogues).
• The chronological ordering tells us a lot about Plato's intellectual development (e.g. his move from simply investigating universal terms (early), to positing such universals as Forms (middle), to disillusion with (or, at least, relative silence on) the theory of Forms (late) - similar points can be made about his political and psychological theories)
• In other WP articles it can be important to mention a particular chronological group of dialogues (e.g. in the Socrates article, it is important to mention that Plato's early dialogues are often believed to be more representative of the historical Socrates) and the place to explain these divisions is here.
• Currently the article, in the section 'form', mentions the early, middle and late dialogues, without explaining which dialogues fit into these groups or why someone would order them like this.

So, I suggest that:

1. In some way, perhaps as an appendix of sorts, a popular chronological ordering is laid out.
2. A section is added explaining the chronological ordering, debates that surround it, and the sort of evidence that goes into establishing it.

--Dast 14:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that this topic deserves a seperate section by itself, where we could establish the two Diogenean classifications and discuss the major developments of dialogue classification : chronological, stylometrical and the like. The classification of the dialogues reveals much of how Plato's philosophy has been viewed, notably since the 19th century. I therfore agree with Dast's second proposal, with some addition. --Philopanda

I have added Friedrich Schleiermacher's order which - I believe - is very relevant: he severely criticized earlier orderings and (I think) is the originator of the Early/Middle/Late scheme >> though many dialogues fall in the same periods, HIS GREAT EMPHASIS on reading Plato in the right order to actually Understand Plato! - this seems to be lost for who really sits down these days and has the time and initiative to tackle 9 or 10 dialogues in a row... thinking through all of the inter-connections?! - - Moreover, his Placement of Phaedrus at the HEAD and of Parmenides as the Final Copestone of the EARLY, foundation dialoges - this is very different from what the "modern" ordering maintains. I'm glad to see that my additions have not been clobbered yet... Phillip 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a mistake to highlight Schleiermacher's work so prominently in the article. His work on this question was entirely superseded by the groundbreaking work of Lewis Campbell in The Sophistes and Politicus of Plato published in 1867. Campbell was the first to use linguistic analysis to prove objectively that the Critias, Timaeus, Laws, Philebus, Sophist, and Statesman were all clustered together as a group, while the Parmenides, Phaedrus, Republic, and Theaetetus belong to a separate group, which must be earlier (given Aristotle's statement in his Politics 1264b24-27 that the Laws was written after the Republic; cf. Diogenes Laertius Lives 3.37). This is explained by Campbell's student John Burnet in his Platonism pp. 9-12. The 3 divisions established by Campbell are indeed today almost universally accepted, though of course the ordering within these groups is quite controversial, perhaps hopelessly. Isokrates 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the ordering of dialogues into early, middle, and late periods is unfairly presented as the orthodox view and that there are an increasing number of dissenters who would contest such an ordering as a means of understanding Plato's 'development'. I am not however contesting that there are important interrelationships between the dialogues, or that there is some evidence for suggesting a sort of ordering between some (but not all) of the dialogues, but that the differences in his 'doctrines' (if Plato can be said to have doctrines) between the dialogues are given a kind of biographical/psychological explanation, rather than a (IMO a more interesting) philosophical explanation. I think such an opposing view should be represented in the article in addition to the chronological orderings. There may be reason to question whether there was in the first place even a doctrine of ideas for Plato to have abandoned in his dialogue Parmenides. In any case, this goes back to my objections that I've posted in the "Expansion Needed" section about how opposing interpretative strategies are not being fairly represented as the article now currently stands. EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Can we add the category:Eck Masters (see ECK_master#Historical_figures_as_ECK_masters) or is the Eckankar religous group too obscure and idiosyncratic? Andries 22:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think not. The category contains only people who considered themselves Eck masters. That someone is interpreted in a particular way by a particular group does not justify categorization as, essentially, a member of that group. Forgive the crass analogy, but if there were a category for Charles Manson's accomplices, Paul McCartney would not belong in it. Chick Bowen 22:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Minos

Can anyone tell me why the Minos is considered apocryphal ? wblakesx~~ (unsigned comment by 216.13.177.178)

because he said so(unsigned comment by 216.13.177.178)

To put it simply, dating. In style and in philosophical approach, the Minos resembles the work of Academicians (people from the school Plato founded) writing around 345-330 BC, and most Platonists think that's when the Minos was written. Plato of course was dead by then. The Hipparchus, another apocryphal dialogue, is probably by the same author as the Minos. By the way, please don't blank the talk page. Chick Bowen 16:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

MUSIC

THere should be added something about Plato's view on music, and the importance of music education. - Rich

Interesting point. +MATIA ☎ 09:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps on the Plato's Republic page? --Dast 08:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

plato (broad)

I think he got the nickname because he head a broad forehead. +MATIA ☎ 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have referenced the alternative accounts found in Diogenes Laertius. We need more references to the dialogues and doxography. Larvatus 20:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

EROS AND SEXUALITY

We need a summary on Plato's accounts of eros as a pathway to knowledge and his horizons and constraints on families and sexuality in the Republic and the Laws. I can forward my notes on this subject to any interested party. Larvatus 20:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

After a quick perusal of the article I was going to inquire how is that that in that whole long article no one has managed to insert even a fleeting mention of Plato's analysis of pederasty, and indictment of its sexualized and mundane forms. Are the Phaedrus and the Symposium scriptae non gratae here? But I see that Larvatus is trying to make ammends. Can I be of any help in this? Haiduc 03:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Look here Larvatus 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Featured article?

This certainly looks like it should be a featured article. Any objection to my nominating it? Rick Norwood 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Second the motion, all the better if the three red links in the main body, the examples Clitophon, Demodocus, and (form) kinds, were expanded. - Athrash | ^Talk 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Confucius

See Talk:Confucius for discussion of "see also" section. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Plato and Poetry

Plato had a strong distaste for poetry, would anyone care to write a section about this with me? Thanks, GChriss 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not unless i get to write the part about how incredibly important and literally divine poetry is for Plato.  ;) --Heah ^talk 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there are arguably some 'poetic' elements in the dialogues themselves. Socrates is sometimes compared to Odysseus (esp. Symposium) as well as quotations from the Odyssey and Iliad and Hesiod's works being included in the dialogues. In any case, it is not an easy issue and I don't it deserves a kind of capsule summarization to the effect of 'Plato did not like poets'. There is even a link at the bottom of the wiki article to the SED article "Rhetoric and Poetry" by Charles Griswold that strongly argues for a more complicated relationship than mere antagonism between philosophy and poetry: "Plato's remarkable philosophical rhetoric incorporates elements of poetry. Most obviously, his dialogues are dramas with several formal features in common with much tragedy and comedy (for example, the use of authorial irony, the importance of plot, setting, the role of individual character and the interplay between dramatis personae). No character called “Plato” ever says a word in his texts. His works also narrate a number of myths, and sparkle with imagery, simile, allegory, and snatches of meter and rhyme. Indeed, as he sets out the city in speech in the Republic, Socrates calls himself a myth teller (376d9-10, 501e4-5)..." Of course, this also goes back to the (not so innocent and contestable) assumption of taking Socrates to be Plato's mouthpiece for his 'mature philosophy' in his 'Middle Dialogues'. EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Real name

Perhaps it should be mentioned that his real name was Aristocles as he was nicknamed Plato after his 'Broad Shoulders' not forehead. Platon meaning broad.

see the first paragraph of the "bio" section. its in there.--Heah ^talk 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have anything solid that tells us why he was called Plato? I'd be very interested. Another interpretation I heard was that he was called broad because of his wide knowledge - a little too retrospective perhaps. Dast 12:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not known what in particular "broad" would refer to, even supposing that Plato's name did mean "broad", instead of merely being a name ("Plato" as a name was quite common in his time). See pages 21-23 of this article by the reputable ancient Greek scholar David Sedley: http://assets.cambridge.org/052158/4922/sample/0521584922ws.pdf Isokrates 13:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion needed

The article is still in pretty poor shape, I even found typos right at the beginning. The discussion on the commentarists is rather poor and unscholarly; surely the latest currents of interpretation such as that of the Tuebingen school (Reale etc.) need to be discussed, as much as their opposer's (Brisson et. al). A deeper entry on Plato and Pythagoreanism is also needed. Recommended works would be Brazil's Mário Ferreira dos Santos, Burkert's classic Weisheit und Wissenschaft and his pupil's, Christoph Riedweg, recent book on Pythagoras. In following Burkert, that last title on Philolaos would also be of help. and many others. Less specialized interpretations, not as kitsch as Einstein's and such, say, that of Strauss or Bernardette's, would be nice, since they've had large followings. I may end up writing all of that, if I have the time.

I do think that the article could use a bit more work as well. It only seems to focus on the more orthodox interpretation of Plato that is prominent in the US and Britain and ignores the Tubingen, Romantic, and Straussian interpretations of Plato. For example, some commentators (Leo Strauss and his followers) would believe it is a mistake to take Socrates as the mouthpiece for Plato's 'philosophy'. They cite how Socrates often makes errors in his argumentation and often contradicts himself between dialogues. (ex. In the Phaedrus, Socrates refers to Eros as a god, whereas in the Symposium Eros is a daimon. Also, many of the details on the dotrine of ideas are contradictory. In the Phaedrus they are hyperuranian beings, whereas in the Symposium Socrates refers to "Beauty Itself" and does not use the words 'eidos' or 'idea' in connection with his discussion on beauty. Lastly, there is a notable logical error that Socrates makes near the end of the Protagoras.) While some scholars attribute these faults to Plato's own inadequacies (the contradictions are explained as part of Plato's development and the logical errors are excused by citing how Plato did not have access to developments that occurred later in the history of philosophy), some Straussian scholars (and I believe Tubingen as well) would cite that Plato had esoteric teachings and that (according to Straussians) Socrates' teachings in the dialogues are merely exoteric. The contradictions and logical errors are interpreted as a means for Plato to communicate to more privileged readers that more investigation [into the dialogues] is needed. Also, they propose that the dialogue should be interpreted as a whole (including its more 'literary' elements: the dramatic setting, interpretation of the myths, Socrates' use of rhetoric and considerations of his audience, etc.) EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say, your comments are among the better informed that I've seen on wikipedia since I started following some of these articles 2 months ago (you're an insider - an academic, I think). I would very much like to know what your summary of Luc Brisson's interpretation, and what he is opposing. I never took the esoteric or oral doctrine to be an reading exclusive to Straussian scholars. In fact, I think a number of Plato scholars who espouse similar readings of Plato would be offended if associated in this way with Strauss, Bloom et. al. .Zeusnoos 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to suggest that the Straussians can lay an exclusive claim for proposing that Plato had esoteric teachings (though I'm not sure which schools of interpretation claim that the esoteric teachings are hidden in the dialogues). I merely did not wish to make claims about other interpretations that I could not back up with any hard textual evidence. I have not given due attention to the Tubingen or Romantic interpretations (though I believe that the Tubingen does claim that there is an esoteric teaching?) Also, I don't have any familiarity with Luc Brisson or his interpretation. I suppose I should come clean I state that I am a mere undergraduate who has studied under Prof. Stanley Rosen, a former student of Strauss. In any case, I'm interested to see what you have to say about Mr. Brisson should you contribute to the article. I strongly take objection to the claims (seemingly presented as unbiased) in the section "Form and Content" which rather problematically states (without qualification) that "In the middle dialogues, Socrates becomes a mouthpiece for Plato's own philosophy..." as well as the claim that "The late dialogues read more like treatises..." These claims do not at all fall in line with the view that the dialogues are primarily dramas, and that Plato pursued the dialogue form precisely to avoid the limitations of treatises. Why is it the Plato never speaks directly to his audience? Why does he not simply include a character with the name 'Plato' in his dialogues instead of going the roundabout way and (supposedly) using Socrates as a mouthpiece? Moreover, I don't think this statement can be left as stands: "Plato also had a position on the art of writing as opposed to oral communication. This is evidenced in his Phaedrus1 dialogue and his Seventh Epistle.2 He said that oral communication is superior to the written word, especially in the accuracy of the oral word over the written word and in his Seventh Epistle that nothing of importance should be written down but transmitted orally." Taken at face value, this makes Plato look rather incompetent as a philosopher, since his dialogues are writings. However scholars have proposed that Plato may have actually believed his dialogues to escape Socrates' criticism of writing in the Phaedrus, that Plato chose the dialogue form because it is better able to cope with the limitations of writing than the treatise. This view is even put forth in the linked SEP article "Rhetoric and Poetry" by Charles Griswold (another professor I've studied under, also a former student of Prof. Stanley Rosen). Moreover, it has also been suggested by some scholars that the content of the Epistles may also be ironic. Personally, I think that the assumption of an esoteric teaching within the dialogue (even as a purely methodological assumption) in interpreting Plato leads to a much richer interpretation than anything that has been suggested in the current state of the Wiki article. Plato is my favorite philosopher, and I was quite dismayed to see that other schools of interpretation (even ones that I was less familiar with) are currently not being fairly represented. IMHO, the Plato depicted currently in the wiki article is a relatively shallow, boring, and uninteresting philosophical figure. Of course, that sort of commentary is not exactly appropriate for a wiki article... Also, I propose at least a brief mention of Gadamer's work as well as Derrida's notable commentary on the Phaedrus...(perhaps also a bit more in depth summary of Schleiermacher's interpretations?) Another consideration introduced by other interpretations that I think is worth mentioning is the question of just how much Plato's philosophy and Platonism can be identified (the wiki article seems to suggest they are virtually identical; in light of other interpretive possibilities, I think it should at least be mentioned that it has been contested). One last point that I'll state explicitly (though just as much can be gathered from my prior comments) is that the putative chronological ordering of the dialogues should be presented just as such - as being in some cases engendered by speculation, and that scholars have contested the possibility of such a rigid ordering (though some dialogues undoubtedly do have some connections...perhaps more on this later...) EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite my intense dislike of Strauss, which has nothing to do with his interpretations of Plato, I agree entirely with everything above. I've read a heck of a lot of Plato but have mostly avoided secondary source material, so i haven't done anything about it. So with your knowledge of the citable stuff, please fix it up!--heah 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only real secondary material that I'm in any position to say I'm an authority on is Stanley Rosen's commentary on the Symposium, esp. since I've taken a class taught by him. Of course, in about year's time I may be prepared to do the necessary work I've suggested as I plan to do independent study under Prof. Griswold on the Phaedrus. In the process, I may plan to acquire a general familiarity with the heavy hitters in the secondary material (Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Heidegger, Strauss, Derrida, Cherniss, Vlastos, Kramer, etc.) In the event that I do so, I'll be sure to get to the nitty gritty of properly representing the differing interpretations. EmileNoldeSinclair 05:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with tone

All references to "we" and "us" in this article should be reworded so as to avoid self-reference. -Silence 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"We" and "us" are commonly used in academic writing to refer to the state of human knowledge, and the like. It doesn't constitute self-reference, as it's not talking about either the authors in particular or Wikipedia in general. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Philosophy

"The Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato—nor the knowledge of Greek needed to read them." This flatly contradicts the node on Medieval philosophy as Neoplatonism was clearly a major element of philosophy of medieval times. This article makes it sound as though platonism only resurfaced during the Renaissance when in fact, it was wide-spread before Aquinas brought Aristotle into the Catholic mainstream.

Mel's edit

Thanks for a good copy edit, Mel. Rick Norwood 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we must say thanks for the spam he copy/edited and reposted after a CVU/RC Patroller reverted it. --Scott Grayban 20:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Information would be more helpful than sarcasm. Rick Norwood 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain the dreaeery and depressing saga behind Sgrayban's comment: an editor followed our instructions at Wikipedia:External links, and instead of spamming articles with links to his site, added them to Talk pages. A couple of admins immediately jumped on him, threatening him with being blocked for link-spamming (he was in fact blocked, though it was quickly lifted), and removing all the comments that he'd left at talk pages before other editors could see and assess them.

The site is very poor quality, and I hope that none of the links would have been added to articles — but I protested that it was wrong to treat him like that for doing what our own guidelines said that he should. I reinstated his comments, and took it to WP:AN/I. What was really depressing was the number of editors, including admins, who joined in the incivility (to put it mildly) and slogan-shouting ("spam is spam", down with Googlebombing", etc.). Sgrayban was involved in the original harrassment of the editor, and has been one of the most hysterical members of the chorus, accusing me of wanting spam in Wikipedia, and other absurdities.

Not very edifying, but I thought you should know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge and opinion

Quoting from the article: "Another key distinction and theme in the Platonic corpus is the dichotomy between knowledge and opinion, which foreshadow modern debates between David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and has been taken up by postmodernists and their opponents, more commonly as the distinction between the objective and the subjective."

Surely the distinction between knowledge and belief has been accepted and explored by the vast majority of philosophers since Plato. I'm not sure why Hume, Kant, and Postmodernists get a special mention. I am sure, however, that the distinction between the objective and subjective is, while potentially related, a very different philosophical issue and one, furthermore, which does not enter Plato's work (at least in a way resembling post-enlightenment debates). Or have I missed something? Dast 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. In fact Hume has relatively little to say on this (and there are no "debates between" him and Kant, for obvious reasons of chronology); Plato's distinction has nothing to do with the objective–subjective distinction (true beliefs were as objective as knowledge). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

It would be good forget P's ideas and get a better picture of P's personality, social status, &etc and only then review his ideas. -Good luck on that, afraid there weren't too many biographers around at the time. Hypotyposis 03:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

About the "the State" section

The section is much too short.It deals with Platon's greatest work and it doesn't manage to summarize correctly its concept. Also i would like to suggest this:

Protective (Warriors) — those who are adventurous, strong, brave, in love with danger; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.

This refers to the Guardians of the city,who can hardly be described as reckless-"adventurous,in love with danger"-and are the military and city watch of the city.It is widely known that the military forces of ancient greece were made up of the "phalanx",which was an organised,well-disciplined unit that greatly depended on team-work and not on the single person.It was the primary reason for the success of the greek armies on defeating rival nations.Platon would certainly conceive the Guardians of the city under this fashion. This is pictured in the society of the Guardians.Furthermore,the Guardians received the best education in the city, and it is from their ranks that the Philosopher-Kings came. Evenmore,"θυμοειδές" should'nt be translated as "spirit".It means the will of a human being, the part of the soul which is connected with acting in itself,unlike "επιθυμιτικό" kai "λογίκο", which govern the "willing" part of the soul, to fullfill their purposes. So I suggest this

Protective(Guardians)-those who are strong, brave, disciplined and serve the city by protecting and expanding it,the military. These correspond to the "willing" part of the soul.

Any suggestion about a better term than "willing" is welcome.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.150.185 (talk • contribs) 13:25, June 21, 2006 (UTC)

Chronology?

Upon what ground, precisely, do we hold that Plato's works can be divided into "early" and "late." Surely we do not wish to suggest to the reader that there is no controversy on this matter or that a chronology might be established at all. We are told by at least one contemporary source that Plato revised his works repeatedly throughout his life. If we believe that we might analyze the dialogues and reveal some sort of development, we might be guilty of hacking down the forest to count the rings of the trees. I would suggest that Plato is smart enough to elude such analysis.

Jrbennett 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Justice = Respublica?

What is the source for the 'not in Tetralogies' list? Am I mistaken to think that one or more edition of the Republic had the subtitle, "On Justice"? Is it known when this subtitle added? Is there any scholarly debate on this issue? Zeusnoos 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's almost universally accepted that the "subtitles" of all of Plato's works weren't by Plato himself, but were added by in the early 1st century A.D. by Thrasyllus or a later editor. The more reliable modern editions of Plato's works don't even include these subtitles, or if they do then they warn readers that they aren't Plato's. Isokrates 14:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

On what basis is it said in the article that Plato was born in May or December? I know there is a controversy on what year he was born in (see Debra Nails, The People of Plato). I didn't know that anyone was more certain of the month in which he was born, especially given the fact that ancient Greeks generally didn't observe birthdays.Isokrates 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)