Talk:Plato/Archive 2

message: 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 (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)
thread_title: Naming of Wikipedia articles on Plato's texts

message: 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)
thread_title: Translations

message: 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)
thread_title: Glaucon

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I inquired with User:Jossifresco in this regard.  --goethean ॐ  14:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: a google image search turned up this.  --goethean ॐ  15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Not bad, although it does not show the actual shadows...Septentrionalis 16:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll (picture)

message: 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:
# In some way, perhaps as an appendix of sorts, a popular chronological ordering is laid out.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Just as a matter of interest - since I agree with your suggests - who exactly is it that you are thinking of?  I don't know of anyone who would resist an early, middle, and late ordering, with an admission that we cannot be sure exactly where dialogues fall and, even less, how they are ordered within the these three blocks. Dast 18:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Order of the Dialogues

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minos 

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

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