Talk:Analogy of the Sun

message: This article is a good reason why I think the number of topics in Wikipedia is practically inexhaustible.  As a matter of fact, the metaphor of the sun is reasonably important in Plato scholarship, and yet there are scores(probably hundreds if not thousands) of similar concepts, theories, myths, metaphors, etc., to be found in Plato.  And then there are similar numbers to be found in the work of dozens of other great philosophers.  And that's just history of philosophy! --Larry Sanger
:Yes, wise people have long ago realized, that Wikipedia is a failed concept. For two reasons:1. It is (under) centralized (control). Meaning when the vandals become the admins, it’s game over. (“Anyone can edit … and be instantly reverted, called a vandal, and banned, lol”.) And due to human psychology (see: Dunbar’s numberand anonymity leading to effective psychopathy), ALL online communities inevitably devolve into fascist totalitarian dictatorships, with no way to prevent it (as removing anonymity would be even worse, due to permanancy and spread. See Cardinal Richelieu’s “seven lines” quote.).And 2. The site being literally founded upon the logical fallacy of “argument from authority”, with its rules of “no original research” (aka hiding invalid arguments behind links to “authorities”, that nobody checks, or even straight-up page numbers in inaccessibe books!) and “citation (that pleases the bias of the vandaladmin dictatorship) needed”.It’s dead, Jim. Just a Lovecraftian, shambling Thing at this point.—109.42.178.139 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is plagiarized from http://www.crystalinks.com/platometaphors.html but I don't know how to add the template that tells people that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.253.230 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I recommend removing the words "arguably intellectual illumination" from the following quote: "the sun as a metaphor for the source of "illumination", arguably intellectual illumination"
NovaGnosis (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: sun metaphor 

message: Our dear departed Lasersword did a great deal of creditable work on this article, but I have a quibble. His change in 
to line 23 made it unintelligible. Can someone fix? Thank you. 66.92.161.127 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Among excellent edits, one that obfuscates 

message: @Bafuncius - the material is not, in fact, sourced, the citations are to the republic itself, and all of analysis and interpretation in this article appears original. As such, I believe it should be removed.  - car chasm (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the answer, ! There seems to be some paragraphs with valid sources. For instance, the first paragraph's statement is in check with what is written in the first source (). And one of the last ones too, according to this source: . The other ones mainly used as reference "Pojman, Louis & Vaughn, L. (2011). Classics of Philosophy.": indeed this one is invalid; at first glance I've thought that it was some secondary work, but now I consulted that it is a compilation of primary sources, including The Republic: . So there are indeed unsourced and badly sourced paragraphs that can be removed, but in my opinion not all of them. Some main primary quotations can be preserved, for instance, as they are paradigmatic to the passage of the analogy of the Sun and can be useful to appear here for the general reader. Not every primary quotation is original research or invalid. These are my concerns about deleting the whole section, so I thank you if you may consider them and rearrange the info according to your criteria. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The utterly insane and exactly backwards principle of “no original content“ of Wikipedia aside… Where’s the actual analogy??
There’s not even a link to the text!
So in a topic of philosophy, the article can in fact not even show the analogy’s existence! And it had ONE job…
Instead we get an “analysis” by some random idiot too full of himself, who believes his beliefs are the one hard truth, but clearly barely even understands how to tie his own shoes (let alone the insanity of even wearing shoes by default and covering prrciously human-walkable surfaces in artificial crap for machines)!
Shame! … Shame! … Shame! … Shame!
— 109.42.178.139 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogy not actually included?