Talk:Socrates/Archive 1

message: Do we know for CERTAIN that Socrates existed? My understanding was that that issue was still up in the air. --Dante Alighieri 01:05 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)
Not at all.  Perahps it would be if he was only known from Plato's dialogues, but he's discussed by the historian Xenophon and mocked by the comic Aristophanes, possibly among others.
:Unless there was another Socrates, he's also mentioned by Thucydides. Adam Bishop 00:56, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite evident from Descartes' writings that he cannot think, therefore by his own reason he does not exist. - Centrx 16:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, thats great.  i'll have to remember that.  not much on wikipedia makes me laugh.  --Heah (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: haha... that is one of the funniest things I have ever read! Frank Carmody 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe funny, but erroneous reasoning, because even if it's true to say "Person P thinks, therefore P exists", it's not necessarily true to say "Person P can't think, therefore P doesn't exist."  Centrx has committed the fallacy of Denying the antecedent.
* The fact that many people spoke of him and claimed influence from him (Xenophon and Plato to quote only the two most famous) show that he existed...
Many people spoke of Jesus the Messiah and claimed influence from him.
Yes, and Jesus also existed. TheTruth12 17:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As A.R. Lacey said in a 1971 article on Socrates:  "The evidence, inadequate though it is, is too widespread to allow such an agnosticism without insisting on a degree of rigour we are unwilling to use elsewhere...."  For example, if you're willing to call Socrates' existence into question, why not call into question George Washington's? After all, "all" we have in support of thinking Washington existed is a bunch of dusty old books that claim he existed!!  Very touching indeed; but does this make us question that he existed?
Almost all the characters in Plato's dialogues are historical: why would Socrates be an exception? We have a letter of Plato's, believed to be genuine (the Seventh Letter), which mentions the historical figure Socrates. Socrates is explicitly presented as a historical figure by Xenophon and Aristotle. He plays a part in Aristophanes play BEFORE any dialogues appear. We also have fragments from a number of other writers who were contempories of Socrates who mention him. There is copious mention of a great deal of lost texts that mention Socrates, which survived certainly into Roman times. Every single ancient author up to Roman times, who says either way, believes he is a historical figure, and clearly they were in a better position to judge. One would have to be a very bad historian not to believe that this points to Socrates' existence. Dast 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is likely that Socrates existed, because he was a subject of reference by more than one writer. However, the long, complicated dialogues of Plato cannot possibly be a true record of his words. No one could have remembered such extended conversations in such detail and have written them exactly as they occurred. The dialogues are a fictional creation by Plato.Lestrade 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. Even more, the vast majority are not even trying to be conversations he might of had. I think the article reflects this fact reasonably well. Dast 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates' existence 

message: Not a critical point, but regarding Socrates' marriage, I guess there are some conflicting views. Namely, Xanthippe may or may not be the only wife. 
The following page discusses the issue rather in detail. 
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/socrates/wpages39toendpt1.html
See also:
http://www.cnu.edu/academics/phil/carr/SocraBio.htm
http://www.san.beck.org/Plato-Intro.html
Tomos 17:37 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
In the commentaries to Phaedo, I've found this : About Xanthipe, Diogenes Laert says the following: Aristotle says that Socrates had two wifes; by the first one, Xanthipe, he had a son Lamprocles, by the second one, Xanthipe, he had sons Sophronisk and Menescen. It is said by others that Mirtha was his first wife. And again, others say that he was married to both of them at once, this is said by Satyr and Hyeronim of Rhodes. Could somebody check this up, and possibly do a rewrite of the biographical section? Thanks.  May-hem 08:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates' marriage 

message: It does Socrates an injustice to say that he claimed that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one; he argued it clearly and (some would say) convincingly.  But may we have a statement of why it merely seems at first glance to be paradoxical when he claims to be wiser than others on the basis of his understanding that he knows nothing? It's a clever paradox, in fact. Dandrake 08:25, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
:It isn't really a paradox.  The idea that one's knowledge includes the knowledge that one lacks knowledge does not conflict with a claim that one possesses knowledge; by such a statement, one demonstrates that one possesses knowledge beyond that of a person who lacks the knowledge that they lack knowledge. --Eequor 12:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  His claims 

message: I've put in the Greek form of his name with a romanisation. Does anyone have any opinions on whether this is a Good Thing? If it is, I might do the same to other entries. Greek form checked in LSJ. m.e. 12:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be cautious. This has the potential of starting Demotic/Katharevsa/Attic edit wars, which are unnecessary. Thank you for transliterating η as ē and not i. (If such an edit war starts, I will remove the transliteration and defend its absence.) Septentrionalis 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek form of name 

message: There are a couple of places where socrates mentions the problem  of the joints. It seems linked to the problem of definition and categories. I've let this act as a core for which to form associations. Have you thought about it? I have some answers but would like to hear ideas unaffected by mine. Thanks. WblakesxWblakesx 05:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  joints 

message: The whole section on Philosophical Beliefs came straight from my senior research paper.  Here is the works cited page from that report: 
Chin, Beverly, et. al., eds.  Glencoe World Literature.  New York:  Glencoe McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000.
Gross, Ronald.  “Socrates: Mentor for humanists.”  Free Inquiry Spring 2003: p. 57. Expanded Academic ASAP.  The Gale Group.  Newark High School Library, Newark, DE.  1 Dec 2004.  <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.
“Socrates.” Discovering Biography.  Online Edition 2003.  Student Resource Center. The Gale Group.  Newark High Library, Newark, DE.  December 1, 2004. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC>.
Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins.  A Short History of Philosophy.  New York:  	Oxford University Press, 1996.
“The Religion of Socrates.”  Ancient Philosophy Spring 1998:  p. 174-177.  SIRS 	Renaissance.  SIRS Mandarin, Inc.  Newark High School Library, Newark, DE.  1 	Dec 2004.  <http://sks.sirs.com>.
Thomas, Henry.  Understanding the Great Philosophers.  Gorden City, New York:  Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1962.
* This is not a credible list of references. Please use texts specifically dedicated to Plato and Socrates. Larvatus 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs Section 

message: I have some MAJOR issues with the "philosophical beleifs" section of this article.  to being with, it in no way mentions that it is difficult to ascertain what Socrates beleived as opposed to Plato, where we get most of our accounts of Socrates.  More importantly, it states as fact what are actually non-neutral stands on hotly debated issues of platonic/socratic philosophy.  imo they miss the depth of the Platonic drama.  It is very debatable as to whether or not Socrates thought philosophers shold actually rule as kings- notice his constant mention of how he CANNOT go to politics, as his deamon always tells him it is wrong; notice the irony of a rhetorical/dramatic masterpeice going on and on about how art is bad because the author doesn't using his own voice when Plato is having Socrates narate the entire Republic.  and etc.
It seems to me, if there is going to be a philosophical beleifs of Socrates section, it should make clear the difficulty of ascertaining his thoughts and should use PRIMARY sources to provide some of socrates' beleifs.  There is much that i personally beleive is of greater significance and should go in this section, eg the philosophic path as laid out in the symposium and the phaedrus, the search for the GOOD (not necessarily as a "Form"), etc.
so lets all talk about before i single handedly enforce my opinions on the article.  we should be able to come to some concensus about what should be there and what should not.  but what is there now is only one possible interpretation of his thought, cited only through secondary sources with their own interpretations.  we should make clear the variety of possible interpretation and try to use primary source material as much as possible, as this is an encyclopedia.Heah 18:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beleifs revisited 

message: does anyone know why "socratic method" was merged with this page?  it really should have its own entry, as it isn't about socrates, but a teaching style we have named after him.Heah 20:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: since there haven't been any objections and ALoan consented, I've merged "socratic method" back to Socratic method.  Please help with the reorganization and clarification of that page.  Heah 21:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  method 

message: Why does Daimonion redirect here?
:See Trial of Socrates; but I made it redirect to Daemon, which seems better in any case. Septentrionalis 20:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: i've restored the philosophy section, having been deleted a month ago by an anon ip.  if people have problems with it please discuss and fix it as you see fit, but there is no reason that i can see to eliminate it entirely . . .   --Heah (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoration of philosophy section 

message: Someone has subversively slipped the word Fountainhead into the article :D
 i love fountainhead... good for "somebody" XD 71.98.100.93 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  xD 

message: The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War was interpreted as Athena judging the city of for not being pious.
Evidence for this? Septentrionalis 23:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just read it somewhere.  If it sounds doubtful, then remove it.  My understanding is that each city has its own protector god/goddess, and when cities go to war with each other and one loses, it is interpreted of the gods battling in the heavens.  The basic mindset is that Athena is surely more powerful than the opposing god, therefore Athens losing must have been caused by Athena's unwillingness to support the city because of impiety towards her.  I may have picked this up in W.T. Jones's History of Western Philosophy series (published by Wadsworth Publishing), in its first volume "The Classical Mind".  This may be an outdated or unpopular interpretation though, so we can remove the text I wrote for now until we're really sure.  FranksValli 04:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be true elsehere, and would clearly be true of Athens a century before, in Pisistratus' time; but it requires attestation for the audience of Anaxagoras and Aristophanes. Andocides, perhaps? Septentrionalis 05:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Impiety - a doubtful addition

message: Socrates was black
Socrates black ancestry should be mentioned
:Evidence?  FranksValli 18:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is: four males being watched by two females, as is the universal convention for Attic pottery. Septentrionalis 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: This must be rewritten. We could probably quote Plato that Socrates didn't write anything, and the stuff by Meno would not be part of Socrates' works. +MATIA  ☎ 11:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a laundry list 

message: how did socrates take a stand? Yahussain 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking a stand 

message: Not quotes, which are punctuation marks.
The man who knows he knows nothing is smarter than the man who thinks he knows something but actually knows nothing. This appears to be a paraphrase of a lengthy argument in Plato's Apology of Socrates 22c-23c. Anyone wishing to restore it should provide the exact words and a verifiable reference. Larvatus 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: Why was the Arabic manuscript of Socrates erased from the article? If it were not for the Arabs, we would hardly know anything about the Greeks today now would we?--Zereshk 01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is an interesting representation of Socrates, which shows the breath of his infulence. And again, yes, we tend to focus on the european scholastic tradition when thinking about Plato's commentators, but the Arabic tradition predates this and was responsible for maintaining it. Perhaps it would be more fitting if it was alongside a few lines about his role in the Arabic tradition? Dast 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, does anyone know what it says? Dast 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the accompanying text has to do with Socrates, though it is indeed Socrates who is depicted.  The text seems to be from the Mukhtar al-Hikam.  In an article titled "Picturing Socrates" by Kenneth Lapatin (in A Companion to Socrates, ed. by Ahbel-Rappe & Kamtekar, 2006), it has this to say about the image:  "Socrates and unnamed students appear in an early fourteenth-century Seljuk miniature of the Mukhtar al-Hikam ('The choicest maxims and best sayings') written by the Fatimid prince al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik in the eleventh century, now in Istanbul...."  (Lapatin's note that accompanies the image, however, describes the miniature as "early thirteenth century".)  Isokrates 23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of manuscript?

message: Google search for "BC Christian" turns up 17,400 results; search for "BC Christian" Socrates turns up only 108, the vast majority of which are incidental. The ones that aren't incidental are either this article or text copied directly from the article.  I move that this be deleted. Argyrios 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''BC Christian'' My Ass 

message: PMAnderson: I believe you have failed to understand the context of my recent revert. I was not changing it for the hell of it; I was changing BACK a very recent previous edit by an unsigned user. I understand you are sensitive to this issue from your user page and that my justification for my revert wasn't correct in your opinion, but surely to apply your rule fairly, the original edit was the one that was in error, not my revert. Argyrios 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Historical" vs "An Historical" 

message: The source for "Finding that they knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew that he knew nothing'"' is here:  but where is the source for "virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."?
:(Solomon 44 is a secondary source) Andreas 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Meant to link to WP:NSR in edit summary Argyrios 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self reference 

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article lacks references.  The discussions above further demonstrate that the lack of sources has been an ongoing problem for this article. --Allen3 talk 15:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: The platonism sidebar presents Plato's image (as depicted in the School of Athens), yet Socrates' image in that painting is nowhere to be found.
I only bring this up because I was momentarily confused, seeing Plato's image and thinking it was supposed to be Socrates. --Eienmaru 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platonism sidebar 

message: Theres not much on his early life
:That's because we don't know anything. Septentrionalis 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life 

message: Socrates was the father of Western philosophy, but clearly it merits space that some guy made a non-outstanding film 2,500 years later and had one of the rats named after him, or, my favorite, that when someone does something dumb, it's humorously ironic to call him by the name of a great thinker. 
Seriously, that section really detracts. Serious articles about extremely important historical characters don't have that sort of section. Compare to Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Buddha,  George Washington, Napoleon, etc. Argyrios 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give them time.  Eventually, the Napoleon article will have references to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (which, incidentally, also features Socrates) and Napoleon Dynamite.  The Battle of Wake Island article has references to the video game -- not my idea.  Most of these pop culture things meet notability criteria, so the best you can do is edit them for grammar and style. --Jpbrenna 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A generation of film-goers knows him as Soh Crates - isn't this notable?--Shtove 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "popular culture" 

message: I corrected some errors in the info under Mysticism about Socrates' divine sign.  The earlier version called it a "daemon", which Socrates never does (neither in Plato nor in Xenophon); in the literature it is always referred to as a "daemonic thing", divine in origin, but not itself a divinity or even a being.  Also, the earlier version of the article said that the sign appeared to him "always" when he was about to make a mistake; but although both Plato and Xenophon report that its appearance was frequent, neither suggest that it came to Socrates whenever he was about to make a mistake.  By the way, in the time of Plato, the ancient Greek term "daemonic" (or daimonion) simply means "divine" or "supernatural".  Isokrates 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates' Divine Sign 

message: Should Diogenes Laertius be mentioned as an ancient source on Socrates, or does he provide nothing of independent value? john k 20:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diogenes Laertius 

message: There seems to be a contradiction between Socrates opposing sophistry and him actually being one. See "sophistry."
:I would suppose that is because the actual picture on what Socrates relation was wrt to sophists is very unclear. He is seen criticising sophists in several of Platos dialogues. This is however not conclusive, as it is generally assumed that Plato was not an entirely reliable witness at all times. Though it is assumed that some of his dialogues were accurate accounts of real speech by Socrates himself, it is generally accepted that espescially in the later dialogues Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own opinions. Further muddying the question is Aristophanes satire The Clouds, where Socrates is depicted as a caricature of the sophists. Whether Aristophanes merely chose Socrates for this role because of his iconic nature, or whether there is some real basis in reality for this designation is a genuinely open question, though the balance of opinion is that Aristophanes is not to be taken too seriously. Socrates himself saw the satire, btw, and is known to have enjoyed it. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i can try to explain this one, as i learned it (i am student of philosophy). there are several reasons why Aristophanes believed that Socrates was sophist. first of all sophists, like Socrates, opposed cosmology and preferred philosophy that is more practical and more about human, then sophists like Socrates used to talk with people about everything and everywhere. but this does not mean that Socrates was sophist. first of all note that Aristophanes had no idea about philosophy (just like Xenophon) so using him as your source on Socrates is not very smart (Gregory Vlastos wrote allot about this). that is why he could not see the difference. first of all sophists are more practical but in their theory about truth, while Socrates is more practical in his ethics, then they both used dialog as "tool" for their philosophy, but Socrates used method called elenhos while sophists used eristic method. goal of elenhos is truth, and eristic has no goal. this is one out of many differences, for example Socrates never used to teach for money, he never traveled etc. so Socrates was not sophist, and Aristophanes was wrong about him. when Socrates saw the play he simply stood in front of audience and said nothing. it is like he was saying look at me, do i look like Socrates in that play. and btw first play was very bad so Aristophanes had to write second version, and this second version is preserved till today but not the first. sorry for my bad English i hope i helped :)
--L 0 0 P 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Socrates a sophist?  

message: I've just read the controversial lecture by the pope  . He briefly draws a comparison between Socrates' rejection of myth and the hellenisation of the early church. Very interesting, but is this a commonplace notion, or is his Holiness guilty of original research?--Shtove 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedict XVI 

message: Might including a brief reference about the liberation of Phaedo by Socrates (if accurate) and the significance of his presence at Socrates' death give insight into the character of Socrates? This is beyond my area of expertise to write. This aspect came to my attention after reading the following from the article "Socrates or Muhammad?" by Lee Harris:
:"On his last day on earth, Socrates spent the hours before he drank the fatal hemlock talking to his friends about the immortality of the human soul. Next to Socrates was a Greek boy, whose name was Phaedo--Ratzinger mentions him in his address. Socrates had come across Phaedo one day in the marketplace of Athens, where he was up for sale as a slave. Distraught at knowing what lay ahead for the handsome and intelligent boy, Socrates ran to all his wealthy friends and collected enough money to buy the boy, then immediately gave him his freedom. Socrates' liberation of Phaedo was a symbol of Socrates' earthly mission." BobK 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, i'd never heard this before . . .  --heah 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The oldest extant version of the story is in Diogenes Laertius 2.105.  As with many of Diogenes' anecdotes, we now have no way of telling whether it is true. Isokrates 14:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates' liberation of Phaedo 

message: I always thought this guy's name was pronounced 'soc ruh teez" until high school when my sophomore humanities teacher and his whole class corrected me and said that it was actually "sock rats."  I remember people standing up in front of the whole class giving speeches about "sock rats," and I had to say it too!  Argh!  Not sure what this has to do with Wikipedia, hehe. - Connelly 03:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock rats 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Socrates]] 

message: Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment