Talk:Republic (Plato)/Archive 1

message: Although represented as a dialogue. If looked closely it is actually a monologue. In philosophy a dialogue is an exchange of ideas and/or opinions.
The more normal explanation for dialogue meaning conversation between two people is of no interest. In philosophy a dialogue can only have meaning if two hypotheses are compared through discussion. This is however not the case. The character of Socrates does all the philosophy, while the other characters are mainly there to agree with him and to steer the book in the direction Plato wishes it to go.
:This is not really true.  In the first book, for instance, Thrasymachus does a lot of arguing with Socrates...
Yes, but later in the book...it becomes a monologue..however you are correct.
::But it is clear that Thrasymachus isn't arguing in totality an actual position held by anyone else.  Plato is the writer who determines what Thrasymachus says, and what he makes Thrasymachus say does not 'do justice' to the fundamental root of Thrasymachus' idea of justice.
Too easily Plato writes that Thrasymachus agrees to this or that unfounded assertion made by Plato's Socrates.  So I would tend to agree with the first statement that the dialogue is fictional, and that there is no real dialogue, only Plato.  And Plato words things to advance Plato's position on a ruler's right to rule.
-- Capone
Any dialogue that is "made" by one author, rather than a record of a discussion, is not "really" a dialogue. So, "dialogue" is necessarily a form, and the Politeia is clearly that. To which extent which of Plato's work is actually dialogical, there is a vast amount of secondary literature; it seems to depend both on Plato's didactical purposes in the given work, as well as on when he wrote it. Clossius 07:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a dialogue in the same sense as Shakespeare. Does anybody go to play and actually think, well this is just the playwright speaking, it's not a dialogue? You have before you in the Republic a drama, of course one author is the author- but where did he get his ideas? Does anyone think every playwright is a creative genius who just comes up with things or does he look and listen and think and distill then write? To imply The Republic is not a dialogue, just a monologue, is to exhibit a poor understanding of art and philosophy.--Mikerussell 00:24, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
The arguments mouthed by Thrasymachus, and later Glaucon strongly resembel the Melian Dialog, and probably a general conception of Justice at the type.  Socrates was alive during the Melian genocide, so this is probably not an accident... Because of this, the first few books of the republic is Plato's response to the traditional arguments that held strong sway in Athens at the time. Bigmacd24 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Although represented as a dialogue 

message: Talk:The Republic moved back to here; The Republic is a disambiguation page now, see also :category talk:Dialogues of Plato --Francis Schonken 22:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All very well. Your next step in the process is to open "What links here" at left and correct all those double-redirects that have been created. --Wetman 04:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: The Republic is one of the most inspired (if slightly misguided) discussions on several issues in Philosophy.  I have read through the article, and I have to say, I am quite vexed at the lack of information about the content, compared to the verbiage wrote about its reception.--Knucmo2 11:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Knucmo2, you might have a look at Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato#Plot_summaries where I used this article on Plato's Republic dialogue as an example of how difficult it can be to make good "content summaries" for article's on Plato's dialogues. So, hereby kindly inviting you to work on the content summary section of the article! I'd be glad to help. --Francis Schonken 09:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon it's easily doable.  I have the Everyman edition with a handy intro from Terence Irwin and a summary from A.D Lindsay--Knucmo2 11:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, seems no problem to me. Maybe first work on the "content summary" section, and in a second step work on the "verbiose" in the "reception history" section. That's only a hint, in order to trigger consensus as much as possible: just proceed like you think best. --Francis Schonken 11:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception overwhelming content

message: I edited out the following line:
 
Others divisions of The Republic are somewhat amateurish as they do not take into account the Greek text. 
Whoever wrote it exhibits poor judgment. Amateurish is a term not applicable to Bertrand Russell or Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom. Certainly Strauss and Bloom read ancient Greek, Bloom translated a popular edition of The Republic. The person may have a personal preference for their view, and they are more than encouraged to present it (as they have) for it is a respectable and valid interpretation, but it is just that- a Francis Cornford, Kurt Hildebrandt and Eric Voegelin interpretation. Making a reader believe that the view is the only true or correct version, or ‘breakdown’ of the text- and justifying it by some strange assumption about needing to know ancient Greek is preposterous. It is stepping beyond a balanced view, and violates NPOV aim. Did the author ever think their ‘professional’ view strikes others as just as amateur? --Mikerussell 05:19, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
:Plus, I would just imagine what Plato would have thought of the "professional/amateur" division in such a context. :-) Anyway, knowing Greek is a conditio sine qua non, not a special qualification in this context.  The line was certainly not NPOV. Clossius 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV comments deleted about "the Greek text" 

message: This was inserted a while ago:
From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself. The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom. The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic.
Which I deleted. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. First it is POV. Who says Bloom's translation is the most faithful/best? Also, I don't think DVD lectures belong in this article anymore than my Philosophy 101 class notes do. It just is too far removed from Plato's writing, and probably has far too many competitors.
If you want to include information about translations, which would be great, it should not be in the introductory section, but below under a translations subsection, like it is for anyother work of literature.
It does not matter if you are not associated with The Teaching Company, it's still an advertisement. Also, it is inappropriate to talk about yourself in an encyclopedia article.
--24.124.84.133 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate paragraph 

message: I have two basic problems with this paragraph, that it is point of view, and that the information is in the wrong place. Also (and this isn't as important as the other two) it is a poorly structured paragraph.
First, this clearly in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. The actual language of the policy is "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias". If you disagree with this policy, then you should look to other projects (like Everything2) that allow personal opinion, or even Amazon's user reviews. Wikipedia is simply not here to allow everyone to spout off.
Second, this paragraph doesn't belong in the article's lead section. As the Lead section article states, this space should be fairly short and contain only essential information necessary for understanding the topic. That means no peripheral information, such as translations and study aids--see, for example, the Bible article. this information, if it is included at all, should appear in the main body of the article, below the table of contents. Translations are usually the last (or close to last) section in an article. A good rule of thumb for a literature article is that it should be chronological--this article starts with a very brief description of the work and its author, then goes into a more in depth examination of the work, then chronologically explores the influence the work has had. After this could be information about translations. A translations section should have a neutral discussion(e.g., no phrases like "most faithful"), and should have references for anything that may be construed as personal opinion. It cannot simply be about Bloom's translation, even if you do provide references and describe it neutrally. A good section on translations is always a great addition to an article on a work of literature.
The DVD lectures is a different matter, and I think do not belong to be in this article at all. First, I think that most "serious students" will not get a few DVDs, but will go to the library and check out serious academic studies of the work. These DVDs sound (and you have provided no information on them) things that lazy professors use for their undergrad classes. Maybe it provides the in depth exegis that a book can provide, but we don't really find out from your paragraph. If the DVD lecture stays in the article (and it must be discussed neutrally), then it should probably be only a brief mention in a section on academic studies, and any of The Teaching Company's competitors should also be (briefly) mentioned. I really think that DVD study aids do not belong here at all, but if you're "not going to surrender", then at least introduce the topic in a way consistent with Wikipedia's editorial policies.
My last (and compared to the above, irrelevant) complaint is that the paragraph is poorly written. Fixing this will do nothing to change our mind's about this paragraph, but I figured I'd mention it anyway.
"From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself."
Of course an encyclopedia article is not a substitute for a thorough study of any work of literature. This is so obvious that it treats the reader as if he/she is stupid, which should always be avoided. Anyone who tried to use this article in place of actually reading the text would probably use Cliffs Notes or something. Besides, it is not our job to down play our own articles, it is the job of the reader to use them responsibly.
"The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom."
This has nothing to do with the previous sentence, or the following sentence, and so clearly does not belong in the same paragraph.
"The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic."
This is more related to the first sentence, and should probably follow it. The paragraph does not flow because of this middle sentence.
Also, you wrote a whole paragraph with no links to other articles. Allan Bloom, and The Teaching Company both have articles that (were this paragraph acceptable) should be linked to. A case could also be made for linking DVD.
The compromise that I am suggesting is that, if you want the information in your paragraph to be included, that you should take the time to integrate into the article with a neutral point of view, in appropriate locations in the article, in a manner that is well written and and not condescending to the reader.
If you continue to behave like a spoiled child this will probably head to arbitration and your IP could be blocked from editing articles. --24.124.84.133 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone missed the comment in history, this person's response was: "I categorically reject your analysis as false and itself biased." It is time to get this IP banned. --24.124.84.133 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggested compromise for 71.118.32.15 

message: Hello. My impression as outsider.  
# "The best edition is" 
#: I don't mind mentioning this if it is essential, but I'd prefer having it in the reference section. If this edition is truly considered the superior edition by most scholars, then mention it.
# From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself
#:is silly. It is POV. We don't begin Wikipedia articles like that and there are many articles that could begin like that.
# "The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic."
#:It is unnecessary. This is not a study guide, it is a Wikipedia article.
That's my 50 cents. I'm not knowledgeable in the subject; only responding to the RfC
Fred-Chess 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from outsider [[User:Fred chessplayer|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred chessplayer|Chess]] 

message: I have put in a request for arbitration concerning our anonymous philosopher. You can view it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Kentaur 03:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked the anon. However, I very much doubt that the the RFA listing was appropriate - this is just not serious enough, yet. William M. Connolley 11:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: More on that: you put up an RFC *yesterday* and you create an RFA *today*? Please don't. I strongly suggest you remove the RFA asap and give the RFC some time. Also, please link directly to the RFC from here. William M. Connolley 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if I didn't do everything right. First time and all. I just figured that once the conversation hits "This post is merely the beginning of my organization's wholesale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia.", I figure that the RfC is probably going nowhere, and that Wikipedia's Organized Whole Sale Assault policy (I imagine one exists) has been violated. I don't mean this sarcastically--I'm still trying to learn--but if a declaration of war isn't enough for a RfA, what is? Also, it's hardly the kind of shock and awe campaign this user promised, he/she has recently (before being blocked) inserted POV into other articles . --Kentaur 17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Forgot to mention that the RfA has been removed. Sorry if I jumped the gun, I just remember when I first stumbled upon Wikipedia I inserted a test edit where I shouldn't have, and the fury of the administrators was terrible. I was surprised that this user could continue on for more than a week. --Kentaur 17:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Arbitration 

message: As a matter of interest, why is this called "Republic (dialogue)," and not "Plato's Republic"? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think because the title of the work has never been "Plato's Republic". It is usually considered just "Republic" by Plato. Kind of like Homer's Odyssey's article's title is just Odyssesy, despite there being other similarly titled works. --Kentaur 17:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually called The Republic or Plato's Republic. Republic (dialogue) seems an odd choice. I didn't even realize what it was when I first glanced at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see why this may not be the best choice. Matters are complicated by the fact that Cicero also wrote De re publica, now usually called "Republic" or "The Republic", and to top it off, Cicero's work is also a dialogue. I don't think that Plato's Republic is a good choice, and it redirects here anyway. Maybe we should have The Republic redirected to The Republic (disambiguation) and this page redirected to The Republic, since 95% of people who look for The Republic are looking for this article. Kind of like how The Odyssey is handled. --Kentaur 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean move this page to "The Republic"? If so, I'd agree with that, then just add a disambiguation sentence at the top directing readers to The Republic (disambiguation), which we'll create by moving the current The Republic there. Is that what you meant? Any objections from anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't hurt. Homestarmy 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, that's what I meant. I don't see it as a pressing issue, but I don't think users should have to hunt through a disambiguation page if they search for "The Republic". --Kentaur 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and do it then. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: As a matter of interest, why is this called "Republic (dialogue)," and not "Plato's Republic"? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think because the title of the work has never been "Plato's Republic". It is usually considered just "Republic" by Plato. Kind of like Homer's Odyssey's article's title is just Odyssesy, despite there being other similarly titled works. --Kentaur 17:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually called The Republic or Plato's Republic. Republic (dialogue) seems an odd choice. I didn't even realize what it was when I first glanced at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see why this may not be the best choice. Matters are complicated by the fact that Cicero also wrote De re publica, now usually called "Republic" or "The Republic", and to top it off, Cicero's work is also a dialogue. I don't think that Plato's Republic is a good choice, and it redirects here anyway. Maybe we should have The Republic redirected to The Republic (disambiguation) and this page redirected to The Republic, since 95% of people who look for The Republic are looking for this article. Kind of like how The Odyssey is handled. --Kentaur 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean move this page to "The Republic"? If so, I'd agree with that, then just add a disambiguation sentence at the top directing readers to The Republic (disambiguation), which we'll create by moving the current The Republic there. Is that what you meant? Any objections from anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I have wrote three paragraphs covering Plato's theory of the cave which is integral to understanding the Republic.  As such however it still needs an explanation of the divided line and the form of the good too.  --Knucmo2 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of universals section

message: I would put this under the first 'Title' section, but it says not to comment on that section anymore.  I notice that the suggested move is to Republic (Plato) but the article is currently located at The Republic (Plato).  I don't see anything here explaining why this is the case, and my copy of the dialog is titled 'Republic', and the Title section in the article suggests (but isn't entirely clear) that Republic is the correct way of referring to the translation of the title.  A minor issue perhaps, but I'm curious why the decision was made. dimo414 (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the other dialogues are called, for example, "The Laws" or "The Symposium," so "Republic (Plato)" is probably better. RJC TalkContribs 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Republic vs. Republic 

message: I deleted all this commentary at the top of the article. The person/people who wrote kind of short-circuit the entire article by 'dumping' their interpretation into the article at the top. What or who has the authority to succintly summarize the dialogue with this assesssment- maybe they should take the time to properly incorporate it into the article in more judicious spots. 
::All of these areas are examined with a view to discovering the nature of justice; indeed, the engine of the dialogue is this question: "What is justice"? With this view in mind, Plato (through Socrates) constructs an ideal "city in speech," a utopian city of perfect justice. Yet Plato constructs this theoretical city not only to examine the most just city imaginable, but primarily to discover how individuals themselves should best live. On still another level, Plato's Republic is a supreme work addressing the fundamental issue of philosophy; that is, the question of the universal versus the particular. 
::The original title of the work is the Greek word politeia. "The Republic", which is the traditional English translation of the title, is somewhat of a misnomer, taken from Cicero's latin; a more accurate English title would be "The Polis," which can roughly correspond to the modern term "city". However, the Polis was much more than that. It was a way of life; so in actuality a proper translation would be 'how we live as people' (for a better understanding see Aristotle's Politics). 
-I also added the cover of a book, and hope this does not get people upset that it is Bloom's version, but when i looked at the article this morning, I had a hard time recognizing it as a book's article, it had a lot of poorly edited italics and bolding and disambiguation heading. if you have a picture of a book, you don't need disambiguation headings. --Mikerussell 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I do not know who put that in there at all.  Perhaps the editor who put it in might explain why, as I am sure they will have a source for it.  --Knucmo2 19:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All this crap at the start 

message: I also rewrote and edited-out this 
'The Republic is one of Plato's longest dialogues, subdivided into 10 books for editorial reasons but more consistently into 12 preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue.
I am no expert, but I have never heard of this 12 book division, and it seems like it needs to be further explained or edited-out. I know the first book was written probably as a single dialogue, but what the 12 book reference really adds to the article was lost on me.--Mikerussell 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I do not know who put that in there at all.  Perhaps the editor who put it in might explain why, as I am sure they will have a source for it.  --Knucmo2 19:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 book divisions? 

message: Is there someone who could help us editing something about Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic? -- Szvest 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic

message: Hi all. This is a fascinating subject (new to me). I have removed some "Howevers" from the text though as they don't seem to comply too well with neutral writing. I am referring to WP words to avoid . If I removed any sourced arguments then feel free to restore any and quote the source. Also if the meaning of the terms has changed too much as a result then please feel free to alter the sentence so that it reads correctly without any wpwordstoavoid. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Careful with argument

message: Education? Homer? Imitative poetry and censorship? Structure and nature of the soul? Ship of State? Myth of Er? Analogy of the sun? The article misses or glazes over many seemingly important topics and analogies. It's also odd to me that the section on justice seems to focus mostly on the beginning of the Republic. Besides all this, the article is unreferenced. Punctured Bicycle 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly have some good ideas about where to add content, and I hope you'll go for it.  This expert is unable to work on the holes and thinks that a careful non-specialist reader and writer can make vast improvements to this article's quality.  It is indeed woefully incomplete and not well-structured.  The city-soul analogy (and thus the structure and nature of the soul) is barely mentioned, and the article scarcely gives an impression of Callipolis as the dialogue develops its institutions.  Wareh 14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it says something about the Republic itself, I haven't read over the article for sometime, and I am far from an expert, but Punctured Bicycle makes it sound too easy to craft a short wikipedia article on the themes he mentions. This isn't a treatise. "Imitative poetry and censorship?" for example, this is suppost to be easily done, anybody who reads the varying opinion on structure alone might get a hint that there is widely divergent opinion about why and what Socrates is aiming at when he discusses censorship. What can one reasonably expect in this article? Like Wareh states, give it a go to anyone but remeber fools rush in where...something, something.--Mikerussell 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One can reasonably expect a concise overview of the major topics (see summary style). Punctured Bicycle 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holes 

message: There is a related discussion to this article at a newly created web page, Structure of Plato's Republic, and the issues raised above are furthered at this page- Talk:Structure of Plato's Republic. I thought it relevant to mention this here too if others want to read it or comment. --Mikerussell 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Structure of Plato's Republic'' article creation debate 

message: From Nag Hammadi library#Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi:
:Codex VI:
:...
:Republic by Plato - The original is not gnostic, but the Nag Hammadi library version is heavily modified with current gnostic concepts.
Would it be interesting to mention how the Gnostics interpreted or altered Plato's text?
--84.20.17.84 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nag Hammadi 

message: I made some additions, amendments to this section as it wa swritten rather entropically, and inadequately in my opinion. I didn't really want to start editing b/c I get drawn in and I don't have the time to devote to it, and I am stopping now, but it still needs work. I know I did not add cites as they would help improve/justify the changes I made, but again, I just don't have time now and I am writing this just to let ppl know that I know cites should be added and other improvements continued. --Mikerussell 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edits on ''Definition of Justice'' 

message: The original Republic was not written in "books" or "chapters" but rather as a continuous dialog. In some early reproduction it was divided into ten books, a convention that has pretty much stuck ever since. However there exist popular translations that use different divisions. The 1993 translation by Robert Waterfield, for example, divides it into ten significantly different chapters.
I suggest that the article try to adhere, where possible, to the standard means of referring to Plato's works, which is by use of the Stephanus pagination. For example, The Republic begins at 327a and ends at 621d.
I didn't change the article because I can understand why someone would disagree with this. For example, many editions do not display the Stephanus numbers, however at least most editions use the standard book division. At the very least, the article should specify where the sections it refers to begin and end.
Gdickeson (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that references should be made to Stephanus numbers, but referring to the dialogue in terms of Books is so widespread in the literature that failing to do so would be more of a disservice than a service.  RJC Talk Contribs 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Stephanus should definitely be used, and am fine using the Book divisions as well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book divisions and section references 

message: This article seems poorly structured. As a reader without a great deal of familiarity on this topic, I believe this article should start out with a summary of Plato's Republic, followed by a synopsis of each of the 10 Books therein.
The Topics section itself seems poorly structured, jumping around from Book to Book. In the Definition of Justice section, for example, it starts out with "Justice ultimately becomes..." which seems like belongs at the conclusion rather than the opening of a section. It then discusses Book IV, then jumps to Book I. Each Topics sections should open with a summary of the topic, then trace the topic as it develops chronologically within the Books before endeavoring on a general discussion, analysis and conclusion.
Pbr2000 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs summary and synopsis of each book 

message: The current wording "the working-class corresponds to the irrational part of the soul", seems to carry some negative connotations, particularly the word "irrational". Although the classes are clearly ordered with the working class at the bottom, there is a definate sense in Republic that each plays an important part within the society/soul, and thus there should be a more positive word to describe the class. Similarly, I am unsure whether "moderation" is the correct word to describe the virtue of the class. The first two virtues, wisdom and courage, seem to get translated the same by all authors, but there is some variation in the third; I have heard all of obediance, discipline, self-control and willpower. Does this virtue not translate as precisely as the others? 217.155.61.70 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may carry negative connotations, it is how it is put in the Republic.  Although the iron and bronze class plays an important role in society, it is not for their contribution to policy or to defense, and they possess neither wisdom nor courage (cf. 428e-9a).  The alternative translation for sophrosune to moderation is temperance; I've never seen it translated as one of the others.  It literally means "sound mind," but in usage it fits most closely with the other two. RJC Talk Contribs 15:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtue of the working class 

message: In "if, for example, the regnants refuse to declench a spectacular war", what does this word "declench" mean? Abandon? NickyMcLean (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it has no entry at dictionary.com.  Given that the parenthetical remark didn't add anything to the sentence — I couldn't even tell what purpose it served — I deleted it.  RJC Talk Contribs 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Declench

message: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/chi/748263604.html BrianRecchia (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone ever see this before? 

message: I've added the above to the title-line of the article. I have also added the following paragraph;
(As we know) "the books native Greek name is "politeia", meaning the public nd political life of a community. In Latin this is "res publica", "public business"; Greek works used to be referred to by their Latin or Latinized titles, hence Republic. The book however is not byany stretch of the imagination a treatise on republicanism or Republicanism. Nevertheless, the title is immovable."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.153.160 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not ironic at all. Classical political thought was entirely concerned with justice as the paramount value of political life. Greek politics presumed that the pólis was primarily a moral community of men banded together by a common way of life.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek and Latin literal translations

message: The "important" quote section here is ill-conceived. No citations, no context, no speaker given. Should be either deleted or reworked substantially. Doesn't contribute in the least to anyone's understanding of the Republic by 'quoting' unrepresentative sentences or half-sentences (assuming they are even in the Republic - who knows?). Wikipedia at its sloppiest. 
I highly recommend deleting entirely. Start from scratch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.221.165 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote section needs serious editing 

message: An article about a Platonic Dialouge, I wouldn't think would need a section about its structure. In fact, its content is more important and notable than its translations.  Marlith (Talk)  03:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure really necessary? 

message: I'm sorry about doing this incorrectly, but I've never edited on this site before. I know I'm not following protocol, so I am sorry. I just thought it appropriate to note that there is a random sexually explicit sentence at the beginning of this article which does not show up on the edit screen. I don't know how to take care of it, so could someone else figure it out? Feel free to delete this edit, also. I just didn't know how to start a topic. 146.86.68.135 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem.  Could you be more specific?  I don't see any explicit sentence at the beginning, and the template at the top (whose contents wouldn't show up in the edit screen) hasn't been changed recently. RJC TalkContribs 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explicit Statement

message: "In Plato's fictional dialogues the characters of Socrates..."
Why fictional? Can someone at least point out an on-line citation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.152.45 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction

message: The section on Platonic Justice is long and not clear. I propose adding this summary in a paragraph at the begining of the section:
--Shahab (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the section on justice is a bit difficult, this summary looks like original research.  I also think that it is wrong.  A simple statement on what Plato says about justice is bound to be controversial.  RJC TalkContribs 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's Justice 

message: Shouldn't the three of them be mentioned somewhere in the article as participants in the dialogue?  We mention the three major participants (Socrates, Glaucon and Adeimantus), but not them Purplebackpack89  01:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemarchus, Thraysamacus and Cephalus 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of how this document comes down to us today?  How many copies are there?  Are there differences between the texts?  What's the oldest known copy?  These are some questions I have, at least.Nabaati (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lugevas (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Transmission of the Greek Classics. Lugevas (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Texts

message: All interpretation by individuals should be removed (that's currently "Contents" and every section that follows) in favor of a simple outline of what Plato actually wrote. That could then be followed by whatever interpretation a recent consensus of Plato scholars can accept.  BlueMist 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such consensus, not even on what a summary of what Plato wrote should include. RJC TalkContribs 14:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents 

message: Why have both this and this? I suggest merging the first one into the second one, which is in an appropriate section about various interpretations. Am I missing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strauss treated twice?