Talk:Analogy of the divided line

message: I previously added a link to this paper, which seems clearly relevant, and all-the-more helpful to users because it supplies (1) the complete text of the Divided Line (including the often-neglected section in Book 7 of the Republic), and (2) perhaps the most extensive bibliography available (with hyperlinks!).
User BlueMist removed the link, giving as the sole reason, and without explanation, that it was, in his or her opinion, "unphilosophical."  How this person could have arrived at this opinion (unless perhaps they didn't look at the article at all, but only its title) is beyond me.
In any case, I contest the removal of the link for the following reasons:
1. On what basis do you (BlueMist) call it "unphilosophical?"  It cites all the major papers, and pursues a well-known and extremely important theme (the distinction between dianoia and noesis).  It follows in large part Annas and Murdoch. Evidently what you mean is that it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Divided Line.  
2. The interpretation of the Divided Line is controversial.  It is not your place to limit points of view, as long as they are reasonable, plausible, logically presented, and adequately referenced.
3. What are your qualifications to call it unphilosophical?  Are you a professional philosopher?  
4. Most importantly: Where is rule that says that philosophers alone own Plato, and that the only valid way to read Plato is philosophically?  Wouldn't Plato have considered himself a psychologist (a scientist of the mind or soul) as well as a philosopher?  Would you please tell me the name of a single professional philosopher who would say that psychology is not a proper perspective to take on Plato? (I know dozens of professional philosophers who would assert the contrary.  Richard Kraut, for starters.)
5. In any case, the citation does nothing but give users more information.  It supplies the entire text (including Rep. 7.533d-534b, which the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention), and a solid, professional-caliber bibliography.  Any academic researcher interested in this topic would find this bibliography most helpful indeed.
I am putting the link back in pending any logical and explicit reason being given as to why it shouldn't be.  If anyone thinks it shouldn't be there, please raise your concerns here, before acting like a 'Wiktator' and arbitrarily deleting it!
Practical321 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link (Psychology, Philosophy, and Plato's Divided Line) 

message: I tried to fix the formatting so that frist quotation wasn't compressed into a tiny side bar. But the formatting appears differently on my phone and it even appears differently in the preview. This needs someone to fix it properly. Pulu (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Imagine a line divided" Formatting Problems

message: I can't help but note that the line is divided and subdivided by thirds, rather than by the golden mean. Is this intentional? Did Plato ever explicitly state a proportion, or just that it shouldn't be half? Seems to me that it should be the golden mean, since both Socrates and Plato drew from Pythagoras.
answer: I think you've been reading too much of the da vinci code... the goldern ratio is totally unessential to this and is not at all relevant to this allegory. Plato doesn't state a specific ratio by which the line must be divided, and then further subdivided, except that one part in each subdivision must be longer than the other (i.e. 1:1 is excluded). The exact ratio is not important whatsoever, but what, given any ratio, a line divided in this way, will reduce to. suppose the length AC = x, CE = y and x + y = z. Then it follows that the lengths are:
AB = x*x/z = x^2/z
BC = x*y/z = xy/z
CD = y*x/z = xy/z
DE = y*y/z = y^2/z
so that a line divided in this way by any ratio x:y and then the divided parts being divided again, reduces to a line divided in the ratio:
x^2:xy:xy:y^2   =    AB:BC:CD:DE
i.e. the two middle sections are identical in length, which is important as far as length implies clarity/understanding or however we interpret the allegory. which is important as we are supposed to move without any major increase in clarity from the concideration of objects to the concideration of mathematics say. I'm shocked that the diagram of the line on this page doesn't seem to show this eqauality. 
Also, the ratio of AB:DE, the difference between ignorence and knowledge of the form of the good, is greater than the mere difference between the empirical and intelligable parts of the line by a squaring of the ratio. This emphasises how great the episomological significance is between the knowledge of the form of the good and ignorence (Akrasia).
reply to above: The line should be divided at the golden point. The use of the word proportion is the giveaway for this. The golden point is the only single point where proportion is granted rather than just a ratio created. Continuous Geometric Proportion, such as 3:9:27, entails (at least) 3 entities wherein the initial term is reflected in the last. A simple ratio, such as 1:1, entails 2 entities wherein the terms have no anchor. Plato, by specifying not to divide the line in half, implied by proxy not to introduce ratio. The golden point is the only one "cut" wherein 3 entities are created: the Lesser, Unity & the Greater, such that the Lesser (defect) is to Unity as Unity is to the Greater (excess).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.194.89 (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratios of the divided line. 

message: Before I launch this crtique, let me say thet this article, is well wriiten, and accurately reflects most contemporary understanding of Plato's divided line.
The problem is that it does refect contemporary understanding which means it is almost by definition biased toward empericism, materialism, Aristotelianism.
An accurate explanation of the divided line without that bias means basically everything in the current article gets shifted down one step:
The world of sense objects IS the world of shadows; and does not differ substantially from what we call shadows, images, etc.
What we call science is NOT a form af higher knowing, but a system of beliefs, albeit a pretty effective system, still just "a likely story."
The two forms of higher knowing are "dianoetic" and "noetic" fr. Grk. nous, noesis, dianoesis
Reason is dianoetic, "divided knowing" (hence rational, ratio), intermediate between the World of pure ideas and our everyday experience and is the souls mediation of how universal meaning appears in our concepts and perceptions. This definition is thus very different from the common definition of reason as scientific judgement (ie logical rasoning).  
Noesis is pure contemplation of the divine Ideas, knowledge without any intermediary relationship, a knowledge by pure "being", a state of "void" consciousness, a kind of knowing that has just begun to dawn on the horizon of contemporary understanding.
Daffdaemon 2/20/2006
--12.31.6.104 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental misunderstanding of Idealism: Proposed Rewrite 

message: The current translation used for the final segment of the divided line by Paul Shorey, is notoriously bad.
The Greek reads: "hôsper eph' hois estin alètheias metechei" which means "as they partake in truth."  Shorey's translation is "partake in truth and reality."  Obviously this is a very significant and dubious addition.  There is only one predicate term in that part of the sentence, and it is aletheias, which means truth.
I would use Allan Bloom's translation of the whole passage: "Take these four affections arising in the soul in relation to the four segments: intellection (noesis) in relation to the highest one, and thought (dianoia) in relation to the second; to the third assign trust (pistis), and to the last imagination(eikasia).  Arrange them in a proportion, and believe that as the segments to which they correspond participate in truth, so they participate in clarity."
Also, I would recommend a whole section on eikasia and its role in Platonic philosophy, especially in Republic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.223.74 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divided Line Translation 

message: I tagged the article based on this edit summary by an anonymous user:
: The whole basis of this article is incorrect. The divided line is broken into sections opposite the representation that they are portrayed in here. (Republic, 509c-511e)
and removed these comments from the article:
: The Proceeding passage is so filled with error that I do not with to try and edit it. [...] I don't have time to elaborate on this, but I hope some scholar does and will check over the rest of what was written about this subject.
— Miles 05:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the article with some quotes and referenced statements.  It still needs work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy tag 

message: The (AC) segment should be the intelligible world and (CE) the visible one.
leonard.pistol 04:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The labels A-E are different from those in my Penguin Plato, but that hardly matters. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagine a line divided into two parts -> a matter of misspelling, right? 

message: The article has a proof contained in a footnote. There is active debate as to whether and how proofs should be included in Wikipedia and it is important to have an accurate listing of which articles have proofs (even when they are hidden in footnotes) so that they can be used in the development of forthcoming guidelines and so that, once developed, the guidelines will be applied consistently. I am therefore re-reverting the earlier addition of this article to the Articles containing proofs category.--RDBury (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Articles containing proofs (Re-revert) 

message: That quote from Plato is opaque to the point of illegibility. What on earth is he saying?? Surely there is a translation that actually makes sense in English. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a standard translation, though an older one. However, the article explains what he means. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This article makes almost no sense

message: It seems to me that the Divided Line analogy corresponds to the Cave analogy in that it describes the kinds of people that are in society.  The philosopher has the most wisdom and know what Good and the Forms are, but there are few philosophers.  There are more people who can understand abstract ideas, but like the Guardian class, they are an elite group and the philosophers are chosen from this group.  Note that both of these groups are distinguished by their ability to understand abstract ideas, and these are the things outside the Cave which can only be imagined.  Many people, but certainly not all, understand the next lower knowledge group, physical objects which produce the shadows in the Cave, the things of natural science.  The lowest level of understanding is those who see the shadows on the Cave walls and think those shadows are real.  This is by far the largest group in the population, and they talk as if they "know" things, but because their knowledge is so limited they are actually espousing opinions, without knowing it.  
Now we draw the line which divides humanity's intellect.  The first unequally divided line, let's say it is 1 unit long for ease of calculation, and let's divide it so that AC is 0.1 unit and CE is 0.9 unit.  Then we subdivide each of those sections proportionally.  First, AB is (0.1)AC=0.01 unit, which leaves 0.09 units for BC.  Second, CD is 0.1(CE)=0.09 unit, leaving 0.81 unit for DE. AB is the shortest, which corresponds to the smallest group, the philosophers.  BC is the next smallest, thus it represents the Guardians/mathematicians.  CD corresponds to those who comprehend physical objects and DE represents the people who see only shadows.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misha1204 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: My 2 cents

message: Let me temporarily call the individual segments (1),(2),(3),(4); with (1)=AB, (2)=BC, (3)=CD, (4)=DE.
The ratio of (1):(2) is the same as that of (3):(4). This much is clearly stated by Plato. However, no other ratio is!
The present article insists that the ratio of the first half to the second half (1+2):(3+4) is also the same, so that (2) and (3) must then be of the same length. This wishful Pythagorean interpretation is based on a copying and translation ambiguity from older Greek texts that do not in fact differentiate unequal from equal (ανίσα, αν ίσα). Since Plato did not clarify further, you can accept whichever as you wish. Either way, this ratio makes no difference from the point of view of the framework of Plato's metaphysics or his epistemology.  BlueMist (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratio of Segments 

message: Edits were made to improve this table as it omits very important things mentioned in the Analogy. The product can be viewed at this old version.  
The edits have not been accepted as of yet but this does not remove the necessity to improve the table. Here are some suggestions:
* 'Soul' is a Germanic word. The word used in the Analogy is ψυχή from which we directly derive 'psyche.' The use of this word  therefore is more honest to the ancient Greek.
* Socrates mentions four 'affections'(παθήματα) of the psyche. These four are currently listed as types of knowledge, which is incorrect on several accounts. The most basic is that the lower two affections of the soul cannot be said to have knowledge, according to the Analogy, but rather opinion. 
* The current version does not indicate the difference of method between the two sections of the intelligible. The Analogy specifically mentions that they are different in the psyche's use of likenesses and hypotheses.
* The length of the line is itself a measure of relative truth and reality, according to the Analogy. These relative degrees are not indicated in the current version.
Note that all these suggestions we attempted to resolve by the newer version. Yet, all things can be improved, so please do suggest how the newer table can be made even more so.
--Mercer.philosophy (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Need for an Improved Table in the Intelligible Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Analogy of the divided line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418215659/http://filepedia.org:80/files/Plato%20-%20The%20Republic.pdf to http://www.filepedia.org/files/Plato%20-%20The%20Republic.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100627005606/http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~fede/wp/empirical.pdf to http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~fede/wp/empirical.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article proceeds as if the various theories Socrates propounds are Plato's own views on topics X or Y (e.g. "Plato's metaphysics." This is a very, very contested area in Platonic scholarship. Simply put, Plato did not write treatises from which his doctrines can be straightforwardly read. So, essentially, the article passes off a contested interpretation as if it is simply the case. The division of the dialogues into three periods is also disputed and increasingly under question. See the main article on Plato, and the Problem of Socrates, which reflect these fundamental interpretive problems in Plato. 209.2.47.17 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem of Socrates in Plato 

message: I used "Correlation" (to avoid the need for citation), though it could just as well be titled "Facet(s)" [of Plato's concept]. Stjohn1970 (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table menu