Talk:Plato/Archive 2

True?
404 -- Plato is convinced by his relatives to enter politics. (In OTL, he distances himself from politics because of the catastrophes of the Peloponnesian War, but in this ATL, there is still hope.)

~ Darius II of Persia dies, prompting Egypt to rebel under the leadership of Amyrtaeus of Sais, who founds the 28th Dynasty.

PLATONIC PERIOD

395 - 348 BC -- Plato is elected Strategos of Athens and begins his program of transforming the Delian League into his own vision of a philosophical state. He introduces an examined civil service, founds a standard of education through the Academia, and reorganizes the League's military into cohesive mixtures of recruits from various member states.

His social programs render the league citizens to resemble more the Spartan way of life, over time. Children come to be raised by the state from an early age into one of the three tiers of government: statesmen, soldiers, and laborers. This is determined by examination. Wealth becomes increasingly under the sole control of the state, and distributed according to its needs. Civil rights become increasingly eroded and the Democracy becomes a shell of its former self, since only those who were raised as statesmen-philosophers can take part in government.

Social turmoil in the Delian League becomes commonplace, but is quelled. As the state exercises more and more control over the lives of the people, these rebellions become less common.

390 -- The Athenians forge an alliance with the recently independent kingdom of Egypt. The Athenian commander Chabrias is dispatched with a fleet and army to help the Egyptians prevent reconquest from the Persians.

378 -- Plato writes his book, Sophiocracy, which reflects his plans for organizing into a government divided into 3 classes: philosopher-statesmen, militarists, and workers.

367 -- Dionysius the Younger succeeds his father as tyrant of Syracuse.

360 -- War between Egypt and the Persian Empire erupts due to the aggressive new pharaoh. Under the leadership of the Pharaoh Tachos (Djeho), Egyptian and Athenian forces invade Palestine with great success, penetrating all the way to Phoenicia. In response to this success, Cyprus revolts. The Athenians are quick to gain Cyprus as an ally, and by 355, it is admitted to the Delian League as a member.

For the first time in centuries, Egypt is once again an imperial power, thanks to the military and financial support of the Delian League while the Athenians gain trade interests along the Eastern Mediterranean coast.

357 - 336 BC -- Syracuse enters a tumultuous civil war when Dionysius the Younger is challenged by his uncle, Dion. Dion is able to defeat Dionysius in 354 but is later assasinated by Timoleon, a Corinthian who was in Dion's military service, who, in 344, solidifies his control by requesting help from the Peloponnesian League. Help comes just in time to route a new Carthaginian assault in Sicily. The result of the affair is that Syracuse joins the League as a formal member in 336.

350 -- The Athenians become distracted from the Macedonian War, by coming to the aid of the Egyptians once again when the Persians, under the cruel Artaxerxes III, attack again, in an attempt to recapture Egypt. At the battle of Sidon, the Persians are only repulsed with great losses on both sides.

348 -- Plato dies of natural causes. The attrition in the Phoenician expedition as well as Plato's death causes the Athenians to lose their resolve in the war. The Thebans unsuccessfully try to make gains in Thessaly against Philip II but no longer have the ingenuity to do so, ever since the death of Epaminondas.

345 -- Demosthenes is elected to Strategos and continues much of the policies of Plato. The Academia becomes the effective residence of the Strategos.

340 - 336 BC -- Latin War. Rome's Latin allies fight a war of independence, dragging the Campanians in as allies. As Rome begins to overcome the revolt, the Campanians request the help of the Peloponnesian League. The Syracusans and Spartans send aid that eventually turns the tide of the war against the Romans. As a result, Rome is defeated and ceases to be a major power in Italy. The Campanians are eventually brought in as allies and join the Peloponnesian League in 331 BC.

Huxley might fit in here too.

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Ancient_Greece

There is a hell of a lot going on in this period, yet it is incredibly easy to read a few books and think one understands.

Note that for several millenia the problem of the state was resolved by dictatorship, oligarchy and/or fuedalism. Democratic "forces" were the conspirators. 200 years ago the balance shifted leading to the rise of anti democratic conciousness. WW2 was the supposed triumph of democracy and self-determination, against the revanchement of the "aristos". The really sad part is the mediocrity, the mental incapcity, of those who use the power of industrial revolutions to play out their pathological games of superiority when the only thing in which they excell is "attitude", that and Toynbee's mimesis foreshadow a crisis of immense proportions. Also, Medici were Platoid, several popes were Medici, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" for them (Galileo was their court philosopher). WblakesxWblakesx ---


 * Wow, that's a neat one. Galileo wasn't even a Platonist, contrary to some philosophers' claims, as I noted above. Even if he were, what in hell does his work have to do with the efforts of the arstocracy to put down us good guys? Perhaps you're confusing him with that old genocidal Newton? [If you haven't run into that bit of mad pseudo-feminism, congratulate yourself on your luck.] Dandrake 00:32, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

--
 * Dan, a slight revision of the last sentence... Good guys? that might be an anachronism, after all the athenian demos weren't particuarly just, but apparently he has been used to support later ( and present ) faux elites. But why latch on to parenthesis when there is a larger question? WblakesxWblakesx

I've got to cut waay back on my attempts at facetiousness. As you say, Athenian demos weren't all that clearly good, and the phrase was my attempt at a joke about identifying them and [whoever it was in Galileo's time] and our democratic selves (whom I do see as good guys).

Anyway, why I picked up on a parenthesis: I always say on newsgroups that if you're going to drop little obiter dicta in your posting, you have to be prepared to defend them. Galileo is a subject I know something about, and it's far from clear to me that the person who shocked the Old Guard by writing serious science in Italian for the middle class to read was a philosopher of aristocratic oppression&mdash;even if he did work for an aristocrat. On the other hand, I really don't know that much about Plato&mdash;just enough to have inserted a comment on his great political classic&mdash;so I'm not sticking myself into the larger and more important question. Cheers, Dandrake 01:20, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've attempted to cleanup some of the flow of language of this page. However, I would like to know the following:


 * All the known dialogues of Plato survive, however modern-day standard editions of his oeuvre generally contain dialogues considered by the consensus of scholars either suspect (e.g., Alcibiades, Clitophon) or probably spurious (such as Demodocus, or the Second Alcibiades).
 * Please cite sources that detail this so people can independently verify what is being said.
 * Why are Alcibiades and Clitophon considered suspect?
 * Why are Demodocus or the Second Alcibiades considered spurious?
 * Comment: this should be merged in with the main document and not in the introduction.


 * I cleaned up the text There is a prominent crater on the Moon named the Plato crater, in his honor., however I suspect that this could be added as another section with a very brief summary of why it was named what it was named. Again, I don't believe that this should be in the introduction.
 * I've updated the Plato section. Unfortunately, this isn't entirely complete. Where is the discussion of Plato and Dionysius of Syracuse and Dion, who he lusted after? Where is the discussion of Dionysius II and his attempt to make Plato a philosopher king? What about Plato's disillusionment with Athenian politics? Also, the biography has material that should be in writings - though the biography should probably cover when he wrote what texts and why.
 * Also, the sentence It is suggested that much of his ethical writing is in pursuit of a society where similar injustices could not occur. uses a weasel term. Who suggests this?


 * In the Plato section:
 * It reads and the question-and-answer style is more pro forma. Maybe I'm being a little dense here, but what exactly does this mean? Could we have a more clear definition?
 * It is interesting to ponder the qualities of dialogue, for this makes the reader into an observer, rather than a recipient (the 'addressee' as it were), as would be the case with a non-dialogic presentation of beliefs. - peacock term! Surely this should be rewritten.
 * (William M. Connolley) I cut that
 * In this sense, scholars such as Massimo Verdicchio have referred to the 'rhetorical nature of truth'. Interesting I'm sure, but this idea needs to be expanded and I'd like to know where Massimo Vedicchio said this so I could verify it for myself along with read it in it's context. Also, who is Massimo Vedicchio? Why is he significant? I'd also like to know this sort of information because right now it seems like mere academic name-dropping.
 * (William M. Connolley 20:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC))I cut that bit.


 * In the section Plato:
 * One of the characteristics of the Middle Ages was reliance on authority and on scholastic commentaries on writings of Plato and other historically important philosophers, rather than accessing their original works. - I'm confused. What does "One of the characteristics of the Middle Ages was reliance on authority and on scholastic commentaries", in particular the "Authority&quot; part. What does this mean?
 * By the 19th century Plato's reputation was restored and at least on par with Aristotle's. The paragraphs in the text before hand do not give any indication that Plato's reputation was sullied. This should be reflected in the text somehow!
 * While many critics reject such readings on a variety of grounds, they remain widely discussed. - which critics? This is currently a weasel word style sentence.


 * I've added a references section (I got my material for the Academy that Plato founded from "Plato: A Beginner's Guide"). See Cite sources for more information.

Overall this article has heaps of potential and I believe that it can be expanded far more thoroughly. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I made some other changes to "Work". The assertion that the dialogues mean it never becomes a tract is wrong: see the laws for example. I moved "several characters discuss a topic by asking questions of one another" so it only applies to the early ones. The only later ones I've read (republic; laws) can just about be called dialogues but certainly the bulk of them is the lead characters opinions, not a discussion.

Shouldn't 'Letters' in Bibliography section link to something like 'Plato's Letters' instead of just 'Letters'? After all, if you click on 'Laws', you don't get (or, most likely, want) an explanation of laws as such, with no reference on Plato. This is analogous to 'Republic', too.

Biographical
I do not know much about Plato, but do you think that you could make the biography section a little more biographical and less like all of the other sections? Thanks.

Naming of Wikipedia articles on Plato's texts
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)

Translations
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)

I agree. I think we have the Greek from Constantinople. What the Mediaeval Latins lacked was command of Greek, and only Calcidius partial translation of the Timaeus was generally available. Tracing which precise manuscripts Ficino worked from in making Plato's corpus available to the Latins is complicated and contentious. See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1994/94.01.07.html for an idea of this paper-chase. Perhaps there should be links to Chrysoloras, Plethon and Argyropoulos too.

For the general picture, see the Stanford Encycl. of Philosophy Section 3 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/

BibleRiot 18 July 2005

Glaucon
 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)

Poll (picture)


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)


 * It's ok for now; we can find better. --goethean &#2384;  03:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notable images of Plato have been produced for thousands of years across the world. We do not need to include one by an artist who wrote an article about himself and got on VfD. 172 07:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Shameless self promotion, pics of the artist(?) have been added by himself or suspected sockpuppets on a large number of articles. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The picture we need is "School of Athens." This picture is lame. --Carl 08:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, here we go. Let's get a detail from this: --Carl 08:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

School of Athens is a great illustration of Plato himself, but I doubt it can be used as an illustration to the cave allegory, where Nick Gabrichidze's image fits. Basically both can be used, but I beleive some graphical material to help users understand the whole "Plato's cave" concept is neccesary. As a matter of fact we have an idea. The "Platos' cave" needs a seperate article defenetely,it is a seperate issue from Plato himslef. After all cave allegory was later used as a stepstone for many philosophers. May be some one can write "Plato's cave" article, or put a request for contribution(or we will take our time to write it ourselves) And then we move Nick Gabrichidze's painting to illustrate that alllegory, while the images of Plato and his biography will be kept here. So what do you hink? If no one willtake the time to create aseperate "Plato's cave" artickle till weekend w will do then, but none of us has time to write it till Saturday. Thanx for everyone for ideas.

Gabrichidze 11:51, 21 June UTC

Note to 172-wikipedia is not your private resourse. If you donot like the image which isdiscussed please share your opinion here instead of removing the whole content. The requiest for page protection will be filed if you will keep removing teh content without even discussing it with other users.

Gabrichidze 12:51, 21 June UTC


 * 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)

As we wrote the best solution would be to move the image to the "Plato's allegory of the cave". If rl or anybody else will suggest a good image to illustrate cave allegory we will consder the other image as well. Anyway, it would be just polite to let poll run for at least a week and hen deside to keep image here or not. If after a week rough consensus will be against keeping the image here, then we will allow you to remove it, and will not post it back, we promice. If someone wants to engage in editors war instead of waiting a week so compromise can be found, then be my guest. It is true that anyone can delete a content in wikipedia without permission but note that anyone can also add content. We have had a disagreement with 172 about this part as he keeps seeing this additional image here as some visios intent from our side refusng to consider a good faith. Sad isn't it? Gabrichidze 13 : 44, 21 june UTC

If anyone is skilled in a graphics program, a simple diagram could be created. --goethean &#2384; 14:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I inquired with User:Jossifresco in this regard. --goethean &#2384;  14:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * a google image search turned up this. --goethean &#2384;  15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not bad, although it does not show the actual shadows...Septentrionalis 16:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should remove the picture. Paul August &#9742; 14:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * (commenting yet again...) I don't mind the picture, but it seems totally improper for the creator of the picture to have inserted it into the article and to be replcing it after it was deleted, regardless of whether the deleter was anonymous or not. It really reeks of self-promotion. --goethean &#2384;  15:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Why Goetahean? There are tons of people who are running around this resourse deleting parts of the articles they dislike or disagree with-why not to restore the content if you see it neccessary. The user who deleted this image is going around all material assotiated with this particular author which are posted at wikipedia and sistematically deleting them(check Flying dutchman history page,if you want to see adeletion of accurate image, or caucasophobia page andcheck whohad decorated it with tugs). So for us it is a pure illustration of unforchunate obsession which deleting the content created by particular user. We do not know what his motivation might be.

Anyway let's focus on image-as we have said if you have something else to offer or if you want to move it at "Cave" page then please do so.But please let's talk about the image and not about the motivation of the people who uploaded or removed it. And guys stop being so obsessed with this sef-promotion fear. Artist is contributing the image to this article, we help him to upload it with his agreement : if you think image is OK, please accept it. If you think that image can be used here than artist should receive at least a moral credit. What is your objection? Gabrichidze

My personal feeling is that the image is really, really ugly. No one can be blamed for removing it. But anyhow, let's make a Plato's cave page, so that we can put a "Influence on Pop culture" section in and talk about how the Matrix is a total rip off. --Carl 07:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At 28 I will be removing the image to "Plato's allegory of the cavepage" if he consensus here will be agaist the painting. Please let others have their say and try to avoid the editors war untill then. Gabrichidze
 * Please note that the controversial picture is likely a copyvio, and is under investigation at WP:CP. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Does the commitment of group of users(radiant,mikalai,chris73) who go around tons of pages icluding ones hey never been before(would it be surrealism, Plato, Polygamy or other) with only one mssion: to remove he material assotiated with one single particlar author look really normal? There is nothing wrong with copyright status for this image, the radiant made it up by his own Please check caucasophobia VfD and alk page to see how this unforchunate war had began. I seriousely doubt good faith. A

A highly developed aesthetic sense, constantly growing rich erudition, subtle intellect and cultured heart had an effect on Nick Gabrichidze’s work  Elle20 12 : 05 pm, 28 June (UTC)

Order of the Dialogues
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: --Dast 14:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) In some way, perhaps as an appendix of sorts, a popular chronological ordering is laid out.
 * 2) A section is added explaining the chronological ordering, debates that surround it, and the sort of evidence that goes into establishing it.

I suggest that this topic deserves a seperate section by itself, where we could establish the two Diogenean classifications and discuss the major developments of dialogue classification : chronological, stylometrical and the like. The classification of the dialogues reveals much of how Plato's philosophy has been viewed, notably since the 19th century. I therfore agree with Dast's second proposal, with some addition. --Philopanda

I have added Friedrich Schleiermacher's order which - I believe - is very relevant: he severely criticized earlier orderings and (I think) is the originator of the Early/Middle/Late scheme >> though many dialogues fall in the same periods, HIS GREAT EMPHASIS on reading Plato in the right order to actually Understand Plato! - this seems to be lost for who really sits down these days and has the time and initiative to tackle 9 or 10 dialogues in a row... thinking through all of the inter-connections?! - - Moreover, his Placement of Phaedrus at the HEAD and of Parmenides as the Final Copestone of the EARLY, foundation dialoges - this is very different from what the "modern" ordering maintains. I'm glad to see that my additions have not been clobbered yet... Phillip 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

I do think that the ordering of dialogues into early, middle, and late periods is unfairly presented as the orthodox view and that there are an increasing number of dissenters who would contest such an ordering as a means of understanding Plato's 'development'. I am not however contesting that there are important interrelationships between the dialogues, or that there is some evidence for suggesting a sort of ordering between some (but not all) of the dialogues, but that the differences in his 'doctrines' (if Plato can be said to have doctrines) between the dialogues are given a kind of biographical/psychological explanation, rather than a (IMO a more interesting) philosophical explanation. I think such an opposing view should be represented in the article in addition to the chronological orderings. There may be reason to question whether there was in the first place even a doctrine of ideas for Plato to have abandoned in his dialogue Parmenides. In any case, this goes back to my objections that I've posted in the "Expansion Needed" section about how opposing interpretative strategies are not being fairly represented as the article now currently stands. EmileNoldeSinclair 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

-

Can we add the category:Eck Masters (see ECK_master) or is the Eckankar religous group too obscure and idiosyncratic? Andries 22:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

Minos
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)

MUSIC
THere should be added something about Plato's view on music, and the importance of music education. - Rich


 * Interesting point. +MATIA &#9742; 09:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps on the Plato's Republic page? --Dast 08:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

plato (broad)
I think he got the nickname because he head a broad forehead. +MATIA &#9742; 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)larvatus