Talk:Phaedo

message: I don't have any problems with the content of this article.  However, the main section of the article, "Detailed Summary", could perhaps benefit from some subdivisions.  This might be accomplished by providing a background section, a section that deals with the beginning of the text before the arguments begin, a section of the cyclical argument, a section on the recollection argument, a section on the affinity argument, and then a section on his final argument.  These divisions already exist within the text and subtitles that draw attention to them may make the article more user friendly. Robitussin 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganize?

message: :The problem with the entry is that the bulk of the Phaedo deals with the theory of forms and the immortality of the soul is a secondary argument. The theory of the forms is most clearly described in the Phaedo, better so than even in the Republic.  --P Funk 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Plato's Meno also gives an adequete description of the theory of the forms.  The theory of the soul is not a secondary argument or extension but a neccessary rendition to further Platonic metaphysics and epistemology. --Rec Specz 02:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic of dialogue

message: Almost total rewrite of this article Nov 10Brenda maverick 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how you have improved the article.  The older version at least makes sense. —Viriditas | Talk 10:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: This seems like a thorough article, except for the fact that it does not include any narrative, or any chronological order of the arguments as the appear in the text. I was thinking that would be helpful and maybe all of these specific topics discussed in the dialogue (which make up the entire entry) could come after a general overview of the work. Thoughts? Jhawk1024 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include narrative/summary of arguments?

message: The idiosyncratic claim that Plato was concerned about "karma" and other Indic ideas requires citations. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research in "Sub-textual interpretation" section

message: If I'm not mistaken this particular work played an important part in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.  There is a particular scene in the book where he is a bright young (yet overconfident) student and shocks his professor by exclaiming that Phaedrus is "THE WOLF!"  He gets a shock value, etc, but one important fact is that Phaedrus means I think light (is it the same root as photon???), and it is Lysias who was the wolf.  
Mr. Pirsig knows his mistake and expected the reader to see, but I wasn't privy to his knowledge and didn't get it until I re-read his latest edition of the book with the introduction stating this fact.  I went through 20 years thinking Phaedrus meant Wolf. (-:  
So mayhap this fits in somehow, maybe not.
--Eurlim 10:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Know that Phaedo is not the same as Phaedrus.  Two completely different dialogues by Plato.  Zeusnoos 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance 

message: Does anyone else think the "summary" section is way too long?
--Jacobwilliamson 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: This article mentions early on that the Phaedo is the last of the dialogues Plato wrote about Socrates' final days, naming the Euthrypho, Crito, Apology, and Meno as the others. Having recently re-read the Meno, I cannot recall where any reference is made to it taking place during the end of Socrates' life. It ties into Socrates' last days through the appearance of Anytus, but it's relatively clear that, at most, the Meno depicts the point at which Socrates lost Anytus' favor, rather than any event definitively close to his trial and execution. Since it doesn't really contribute anything to the article and since the bit about Anytus can be dealt with in the Meno article, I'm going to remove it, for the moment.
If anyone remembers something about the dialogue that connects it more clearly to Socrates' final days, they can feel free to correct me.
-- N.Type
:Wow! I'm totally imopressed. Very nice job, very nicely done, in my view. In my year or so as a would-be "editor" in Wikipedia I have never seen such a thorough professional editing job in any of the pages/entries I have followed so far. I wasn't even aware there was this level of real knowledge of the subject matter around among Wikipedia editors. Kudos. A very good, professional editing job done, again, in my own view.
:warshytalk 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meno 

message: In response to the template, I began going over the article.  I removed some repetition and original research.  There was some quotes from the Apology and the Meno that I removed because I don't think they belong in the summary section.  Although they are relevant.  I'll see if I can put them back in a commentary section.--Jonathan Harking (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: There is no discussion at all in the present article of the speculative-mythological section near the end of the dialogue, concerning the "oceans of air", the subterranean rivers, etc. If you can add something on this, it would be welcome. -- 77.7.149.205 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythological section 

message: Why should this be pronounced as Feedoh? Surely it should be Faydoh or Fydoh. Myrvin (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the alternative pron Fido. Myrvin (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Would it not be wise to also include which line in the text certain quotes appear? Or is it better to only cite the pages at the end of paragraphs? I'm sure I could add these citations if everyone would prefer my prior suggestion. CJMcKenna98 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much ado about citation 

message: In the sentence about Socrates' trial and death, this bit in parentheses is quite wrong: '(though some scholars think it was more for his support of "philosopher kings" as opposed to democracy)'.
The idea of philosopher kings is from Plato's Republic, which is one of his late works, written long after Socrates' death. There is no evidence from the early dialogues that Socrates was even aware of this idea, let alone a supporter of it. We have two accounts of Socrates' defence in court (usually but misleadingly entitled Apology, from the Latin apologia), one by Plato and one by Xenophon. Neither is a verbatim record, but there is no reason to think they paint a misleading picture.
It's true that there was a political dimension to the trial, but it was most likely based on the notorious fact that Socrates had associated with Alcibiades, who had gone over to Sparta during the Peloponnesian War, and with several of the leaders of the murderous and tyrannical oligarchy that had briefly held power in Athens after the city's defeat by Sparta – including Critias, the vicious leader of the oligarchy. People wrongly thought that his teaching was responsible for their evil acts. Democracy had only been restored a few years previously at the time of Socrates' trial in 399BCE, and people were still bitter and angry about their suffering under the Thirty's reign of terror.
The nature of the charges against Socrates and the resulting trial is only marginally relevant to this article, and is in any case covered in the article on his trial. I suggest that the entire sentence should be drastically reduced to something like this: 'Socrates had been tried on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth of the city; he was convicted by the jury, imprisoned and sentenced to death.'
Thoatswold (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates and philosopher kings