Talk:Plato/Archive 5

Socrates and the Platonic Socrates
In the section "Narration of the dialogues" the final line of the last paragraph reads as such: Other dialogues, such as the Phaedo, Symposium, and Parmenides, do suggest that such conversations were faithfully recalled and transmitted by Socrates' followers. This is extremely problematic, given that Plato scholars are virtually unanimous in considering these very dialogues to be literary fictions by Plato. In the Symposium the final speech is related not by Socrates, but "Diotima"; the Parmenides takes as it's topic a theory the historical Socrates in all likelihood never held; and in the Phaedo Plato goes out of his way to tell us he was absent for the alleged conversation. The simple fact that these dialogues are elaborately narrated does nothing to establish them as historical records. I'm removing this line unless good reason to keep it can be given. T of Locri (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 428-348=80 It says he lived to about 84. Something is wrong.Hrld11 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro is lifted from Encylopedia Britannica
is this in like with wikipedia policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybzjaybz (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you, and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.99.236 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Broad-browed versus broad-shouldered
The "Early life of Plato" article claims that his name means wide, broad shouldered, while this article claims that it means wide, broad browed. The 2 should be consistent with each other, so which one will it be? You're CRAZY Kriak! 07:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the word is just flat or broad in general, so the name "Plato" itself doesn't contain a reference to a specific body part. RJC Talk 21:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted the following comment on a Discussion page that is now archived: Actually, it's not known what in particular "broad" would refer to, even supposing that Plato's name did mean "broad", instead of merely being a name ("Plato" as a name was quite common in his time). See pages 21-23 of this article by the reputable ancient Greek scholar David Sedley:  http://assets.cambridge.org/052158/4922/sample/0521584922ws.pdf  Isokrates 13:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Isokrates 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be very strange for his name to be Plato rather than Platon, giving word endings at the time? Anyone know? I think he's actually referred to as Platon in the original Greek. Correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKamaila (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right that the Greek is Platōn. "Plato" is just the anglicized form of the Greek.  (Same sort of thing with "Crito", "Phaedo", etc.)  In fact, in many European languages (e.g., Spanish), he is called "Platōn".  Isokrates (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Socrates on educating women" section
Did the article really used to say that Socrates was a feminist? That is beyond idiotic, and the "Socrates on educating women" section still has echoes of that silliness. It is clearly intended to portray Socrates (Plato?) as a feminist figure, which he most assuredly is not. Besides treating the Socrates of the Apology and the Socrates of the Republic as the same character (which is already quite silly), the section attributes to the latter the claim that "gender is irrelevant to aptitude for the professions". Actually he states precisely the opposite of that! For the moment I'll edit the section to show this. But I rather feel that the whole section should just be taken right out, on the grounds that it does not deal with anything like a central topic in the Platonic corpus. Any objections? Flyingricepaddy 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any. RJC Talk 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Plato referred to as Socrates
I am not good with Wikipedia editing, that would be why I do not have an account. However I am disturbed by the constant reference to Plato as Socrates in the Philosophy section of this article, for a time while reading I was wondering if this article was about Plato or Socrates, or rather Plato talking about Socrates, and then I got to the part that said the Republic was written by Socrates and I knew that someone had been calling Plato by Socrates name for quite some time. If anyone comes across this little blurb by me in the wrong section of this obscure talk page could they please take the time to make corrections to the article or inform the proper people? Thank you 66.185.172.148 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC) I agree that this portion is overly confusing. if it is meant to say plato discribing socrates's thoughts, that is what it should say. i've been forced to replace each instance of socrates with plato while reading. This confusion may exist due to the fact that Socrates actually didn't write anything down. It is through the works of PLato that we understand the work of Socrates.Hazman08 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

More citations needed
Among other issues, at least one citation is needed here:

Albert Einstein drew on Plato's understanding of an immutable reality that underlies the flux of appearances for his objections to the probabilistic picture of the physical universe propounded by Niels Bohr in his interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This HAS to have a link to somewhere, some quote, or best, a statement by Einstein. A quick search turned up nothing. I propose a (citation needed) alert. --Petebertine (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have flagged a section in the state for citation. Before I edited the section it originally said 'aristocracy (rule by merit)'. I changed this to '(rule by inheritance)' which is the correct definition; however does Plato say that it should be aristocracy or meritocracy (rule by merit)? I corrected the section so as to make it correct in the context that the section is written but the section needs to be checked for truth and citations added. Thanks.

Joe (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aristocracy is literally "rule of the best," and it is used this way in the Republic; the schema you refer to is outlined in Books VIII and IX. RJC Talk Contribs 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Plato and Dionysius
I've heard that Plato was imprisoned or even enslaved by Dionysius after being taken on as an advisor, but don't see any mention of it here. Anyone know the story? It would seem important to demonstrate his troubled relationship with practical politics. --Beaker342 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As with a lot of the details of Plato's life, there is no contemporary source concerning this story. It comes from Diodorus' Library 15.7, Plutarch's Dion 4-5, and Diogenes Laertius' Lives 13.18-21.  (In the link to the Diogenes translation, the story begins under "XIV", but it's technically 13.18 of Diogenes' text.)  The three accounts differ in details, and it's not known how true any of them are.  The incident is not (I believe) even mentioned in the notorious Seventh Letter, which was written in or very near Plato's time.  We must keep in mind that in the centuries following great figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle a lot of purportedly "biographical" information was simply made up out of whole cloth, sometimes for the purpose of scandal, sometimes just to fill in the gaps.  The ancient Greek scholars Kirk, Raven, & Schofield speak of "the great period of fictitious biography in the third and second centuries [B.C.]" (The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge, 1983, 2nd edition, p. 81).  Isokrates (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the analysis. Quickly scanning through the Seventh Letter, it or something like it seems to be mentioned. Is the Seventh Letter not a valid source simply because we don't really know if Plato or an imposter wrote it? I'm no classicist. What do you mean by notorious?--Beaker342 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By "notorious", I guess I meant just that it is often used as a source for details about Plato's life, but that just as often it's authenticity is doubted. Most scholars nowadays aren't confident in ascribing the Letter to Plato himself.  Still, even many who think it's not by Plato believe (like John Cooper) that it "must have been written about when it says it was - not long after Dion's death in 354 - and by someone close enough to Plato to be confident of writing philosophy in a way that could convince a discriminating audience...that the author was indeed Plato" (Cooper, Plato: Complete Works, Hackett 1997, p. 1635).  But caution is needed.  As Jonathan Barnes says, "Surviving ancient letters are more often forged than authentic" ("Roman Aristotle", in Gregory Nagy, Greek Literature, Routledge 2001, vol. 8, p. 185 n. 284).  You're right that something like the story is mentioned in the Seventh Letter: the letter says that, after Plato's first visit, Dionysius kept him from sailing out of Sicily (329e); but it doesn't mention selling him into slavery, or even imprisoning him.Isokrates (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Righto. I'd still be interested, if I or someone else can get around to it, in developing a more robust biography, to the degree that it is possible for a figure like Plato. I'm probably less inclined to take your hard line stance against sources that might or might not be dubious as long as we are explicit that there is legitimate scholarly disagreement. I'm of the opinion that we should follow what the scholarship says. We can all probably agree that Plato went to Syracuse and had trouble there, but we don't have any real evidence that we was imprisoned or enslaved. Or we can simply say that the more extravagant stories are part of the lore around Plato but can't be verified and may be false. My concern is that to ignore the stories is to leave the article wanting. --Beaker342 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the problem is that modern scholarship says that we must discount what we know about Plato's life, as most of it is false: presenting the false information would be to run against the current of contemporary scholarship.  A lot of what was said about Plato is like stories about George Washington and the cherry tree, or skipping a silver dollar across the Delaware River, or that time he fought King George III with his bare knuckles. RJC Talk Contribs 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's what the scholarship says, then I'm all for it. Perhaps a little note about why so little is known about him is in order. I find your analogy a little off, however, given that the page on George Washington expressly does mention the cherry tree myth. Moreover, the page already includes a number of myths - Plato's virginal birth, etc. --Beaker342 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a good biography of Plato would include things said about his activities in the Seventh Letter, since it probably was written in or very near Plato's time and most scholars do accept it as evidence for Plato's activities. But if you're interested in a robust biography, I would avoid the tales that derive wholly from later sources.  It's true that some nonsense gets included in these Wikiarticles, but that's mainly because people often add details haphazardly without regard for the merit of the source and the edits are hard to police, not because such things should be included.  I'm all in favor of removing those silly legends recounted in the Birth and Family section of the article.  Unless the legend is very well-known or fundamentally helped shape the figure's historical persona, it's pointless.  Neither can fairly be said of the legends mentioned under Birth and Family.Isokrates (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree on a great deal here. But here's my concern. I heard the story about Plato's enslavement several years back from a professor who was not a classicist. Given that these kind of stories are recounted relatively casually by people who generally know what they are talking about otherwise, I think it would do well for the article to mention the stories and then explain why they are generally not regarded as trustworthy by scholars. To just ignore them would be doing a disservice and be helping to perpetuate the myths. --Beaker342 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Married Princes maliza os iona.

Plato not "part of the Socratic entourage" or "inner circle"?
At the beginning of the Plato and Socrates section of the article, someone had said, "Plato made himself seem as though he were part of the Socratic entourage but never says so explicitly. ...  In the Apology, Plato distances himself from the inner circle."  I believe this involves a misunderstanding of how Plato represents himself in the Apology. I would not be prepared to say that Plato considered himself "part of Socrates' entourage" or Socrates' "inner circle"; but that's only because it's not clear what whoever wrote this part of the article means by "entourage" or "inner circle". Is it made clear elsewhere in Plato's dialogues who did belong to the "inner circle"? So far as I know, Plato never mentions an "inner circle". But he certainly portrays himself in the Apology as one of Socrates' young devoted followers, in quite explicit terms in fact. Given this fact, I think it's simply misleading to suggest that Plato somehow went out of his way to "distance himself" from Socrates or Socrates' devoted followers. So I've edited this part of the article accordingly, including textual citations. Comment if you wish.Isokrates (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the prior version as it stood was wrong, but I don't think that we can identify Plato with Socrates, simply. I have revised what you wrote to make it more idiomatic and to remove some extraneous information, and added a paragraph to give more depth to how they might seem different to a reasonable person.  RJC Talk Contribs 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

'Trial of Socrates': Socrates and Aristophanes were NOT atheists
The charge against Socrates was of worshipping his own, non-Athenian gods, not atheism. Aristophanes mocks the gods in his play because under comic license anything was fair game, including the gods, not because he was an atheist. And atheism certainly was 'condemned by the masses' - the Athenians were highly conservative in religious matters. This section is thoroughly misleading and ought to be entirely rewritten. 62.232.17.82 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In Plato's Apology, Meletus does accuse Socrates of atheism, as much as admitting that this lies behind his formal charge. RJC Talk Contribs 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, but the problem with this section is that it implies atheism was the formal charge, that atheism was no big deal in classical Athens, and that Socrates and Aristophanes were both plainly atheists. None of these statements could be further from the truth. Socrates in both Plato and Xenophon recommends orthodox piety in religious observances - there's nothing surprising at all about his claiming his mission to have been authorised by Apollo at Delphi. The socially conservative Aristophanes is hardly likely to have aligned himself with the most radically free-thinking philosophers (and tyrants, such as Critias) in denying the existence of the gods - as opposed to burlesqueing them as was conventional in comedy. Atheism and impiety were regarded with horror by ordinary Athenians - look at the reaction to the mutilation of the Herms. 62.232.17.82 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A possible rewording to "charges of impiety" instead of "charges of atheism" might be better. Would this be a solution? Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that the charge of impiety is more accurate than a charge of atheism, but the first paragraph is worded in terms of "disbelief in the gods," which is the formal charge. Looking at the second paragraph, however, I agree that it has to go.  It is original research, and patently absurd original research, at that.  Atheism was illegal under the law; Pericles' enemies passed the law to strike at his friend, Anaxagoras.  What might be odd is that an Athenian citizen was charged under it, rather than an alien sophist, but prosecution was not unheard of.  As to Aristophanes, I would say that he was an atheist, but that's neither here nor there:  it comes up to prove a bizarre point about those free-wheeling, tolerant Athenians.  I'll remove the offending paragraph.  RJC Talk Contribs 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you'll see from the length of my comments here, I find this matter very interesting; if you don't, feel free to ignore the following. 62.232.17.82 is quite right that in Socrates' days "Athenians were highly conservative in religious matters."  John Burnet says, "…the Athenians at the end of the fifth century B.C. were very orthodox, as is shown by such things as the prosecution of Anaxagoras, and the excitement caused by the mutilation of the Hermae, and the profanation of the Mysteries" (p. 49, "The Religious and Moral Ideas of Euripides" in his Essays and Addresses).  However, even about this we need to be careful, because apparently even rejection of the traditional Homeric tales about the gods (e.g.) was well within Greek "orthodoxy" at the time:  "As has often been remarked, the general trend of the best Greek thought on the problems of human conduct and destiny - as represented, e.g., by such poets as Aeschylus and Euripides - is in the direction of a vague monotheism" (A.E. Taylor, "Theism" in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).  Burnet too says, "…it cannot be doubted that Plato personally believed in one God.  Indeed, that was the belief of all intelligent Athenians at this date.  …  Greek literature, at least, is certainly polytheistic.  …  But we must bear in mind that such things [as we find in Homer] formed no part of Greek religion….  It is certain that not only Plato but all intelligent Greeks regarded mythology as purely fanciful.  The Greeks, we must remember, had no sacred books..." (Platonism p. 118).  Aside of this matter, however, 62.232.17.82 is mistaken in claiming that Socrates wasn't charged with atheism or wasn't believed to be an atheist.  Also, though 62.232.17.82 may be right about Aristophanes, it may well be that Socrates was "plainly" an atheist (in the Greek sense) if he really believed some of the things Plato describes him as accepting.  And, as I'll show, all this can be backed up by good sources, not "original research".  But the matter is complicated by the fact that "atheist" in current English does not quite have the same meaning as the Greek term (atheos) from which our word came.  First, some reasons that the Athenians might have had – or might have been presented with – to believe that Socrates was an atheist:  As Aristophanes portrayed him in the Clouds, he accepted the views of the natural philosophers who notoriously rejected the personal gods of traditional ancient Greek religion.  Of course, many of the Presocratics used religious terminology to describe natural phenomena:  according to Aristotle (Physics 203b3-15), "Anaximander and most of the natural philosophers" said that the archai were "divine" because they were "immortal and indestructible".  But their archai were impersonal "divinities".  As Burnet notes, "The use of the term ['god' or 'divine'] by the Milesians means rather that the place once occupied by the gods of religion was now being taken by the great fundamental phenomena of nature, and the later Greeks were quite right, from their own point of view, in calling that atheism" (p. 201, "Greek Philosophy" in Essays and Addresses).  Indeed, "Hippo…was nicknamed 'the Atheist' 'because he assigned the cause of everything to nothing else besides water' " (Jonathan Barnes, quoting Diels-Kranz 38A8 in his The Prescratic Philosophers (2nd ed.), p. 96).  Burnet says that the Athenians called Hippo an atheist because he believed that in death he would be equal to the gods, i.e. immortal (Burnet, "Socrates", Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Burnet here refers to the epitaph attributed to Hippo at Diels-Kranz 38B2, also quoted in Barnes op. cit.).  Hippo is particularly interesting for us because, as Burnet notes, a medieval scholium attributes to Hippo one of the wacky views – that the heavens are like an oven - attributed to Socrates in the Clouds (line 96).  All the more interesting for us is the fact that some scholars have attributed to Socrates Hippo's view about personal immortality; Burnet, e.g., claims that the Socrates of Plato's Apology accepted this kind of view (p. 257, "The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul", Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 7); Gregory Vlastos says too says that for Socrates "our soul is our self" and "[i]n the Crito [54b-c] he reveals his faith in the soul's survival" (Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, p. 55).  Burnet makes it clear that such a belief alone would be grounds for a charge of atheism: "There was no room in the public religion [of Athens] for any doctrine of immortality. The gods alone are immortal, and it would be shocking to suggest that human beings might be so too. The dead are just the dead, and how can the dead be deathless? In the heroic age, indeed, some human beings had attained immortality by being turned into gods and heroes, but such things were not expected to happen now" (p. 249, "The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul").  Even according to the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery cults the immorality of the soul did not mean that we ourselves survived death in any personally meaningful way; so Burnet explains that, even according to such a view, the soul "may be divine and immortal, but it is really no concern of ours except in sleep and at the moment of death. It is not identified with what we call 'I' " (ibid. p. 251).  As for whether one of the charges against Socrates was "atheism", there is pretty substantial agreement among scholars.  RJC was correct:  As Thomas Brickhouse and Nicholas Smith put it, "Meletus' charge [in Plato's Apology] is not that Socrates completely neglects proper religious practice; it is that Socrates is a complete atheist" (p. 31, Socrates on Trial, ); they note "it is clear that Xenophon also understood the charges against Socrates to involve atheism" (ibid., citing Memorabilia 1.1.5).  Burnet explains the charge somewhat differently:  "The charge against Socrates was, indeed, one of Atheism, but we see how remote the Greek meaning of this word was from ours by the fact that the indictment accused him of introducing 'new gods' " (p. 52, "The Religious and Moral Ideas of Euripides").  Finally, Richard Janko:  "Whether or not Socrates had ever been one of these [natural] scientists, and whether or not he believed in the supernatural, as he clearly did, he was punished because many thought he was an 'atheist' (atheos) in the Greek sense….  This broad term included people who believed in new gods, in one god, or in no god at all" (p. 48, "Socrates the Freethinker" in Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar (eds.) A Companion to Socrates).  And, as I tried to explain above, there is even some pretty good reason for thinking that Socrates was an atheist in this sense, if only because of his unorthodox belief that we survive bodily death in a personally meaningful way, i.e. that we "mortals" are really immortal and our souls divine.  Isokrates (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * as far as I under stand it the official charge was impiety. The prosecution said atheism to which socrates protested. Socrates believed in the gods of Athens but believed in a guiding spirit as well. Due to his belief in the additional god (guiding spirit) he was in fact guilty of impiety, in that he did not believe in only the gods of Athens. Socrates was by no means an atheist, but believed in a different and additional god that was not accepted by the masses. Sorry if this was already covered in the post above me, but the mere length of Isokrates deterred me from reading it. I do however, looking at it's length and zeal, wonder if Isokrates is a professor I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wophi (talk • contribs) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth?
In the text, there is "428/427BC" but in the box on right hand side, there is "424/423 BC", so which one is right? --Raelz (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note "a" goes over the disputes regarding his date of birth. There isn't consensus on which dates are correct.  I'm not sure how to deal with this problem, since asserting one means dismissing the other views.   RJC  TalkContribs 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 425, explained in text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Debra Nails' 424/423 birth date is not as widely accepted as the longstanding 427/426 date, which is supported by Diogenes' Life of Plato. Wikipedia should not give Nails' date equal status because her arguments for it in the People of Plato are highly speculative. Thetruthisoutthere33 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Platonic Scholarship in Medieval times
Currently, the "Platonic Scholarship" section claims that medieval scholars knew Plato only through Latin translations by Arabic and Persian scholars. I believe this is false. For example, here it says Boethius intended to translate Plato into Latin, though he did not -- meaning that he did indeed have access to Plato in the original. Or here and here say that both Johannes Scotus Eriugena and Bonaventure knew Plato through a translation by Calcidius, who was neither Arabic nor Persian. The article on Gemistus Pletho seems to say otherwise as well -- that the Byzantines had access to works of Plato which Pletho introduced to Florence during the Renaissance. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could clear it up.--Atethnekos (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article actually says, that "Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato". The operative phrase is "Medieval scholastic".  The reference is to European scholars.  (Note that the term "medieval" or "middle ages" is almost universally, if not exclusively, used to refer to a period of European history.)  The article explicitly notes that Byzantine scholars still studied Plato (in the original Greek).  Boethius is no exception to the claim about medieval European scholars because he is not generally regarded as belonging to the medieval period, but rather to the late ancient period.  Your reference to the Calcidius translation may be correct, but he only translated Timaeus 17a–53b (not even the whole dialogue) and it was a Latin translation.  (Of course Calcidius did not belong to the medieval period either.)  The claim that you dispute is actually corroborated by the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Platonism, medieval"; it says, "Until the fifteenth century, the only Platonic texts available in the Latin west were part of the Timaeus (17a–53b) and, from the mid-twelfth century, the Meno and Phaedo.  ...  The Timaeus was the only Platonic dialogue widely circulating through the whole medieval period, available in the fourth-century Latin translation of Calcidius."  Isokrates (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I contend that "Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato" is misleading. For one thing, the legacy of the Byzantine Empire concerns European history, as much as it does non-European history. So the argument about what "Medieval scholastic" alludes to is not really that clear, in considering that "Medieval" includes the Byzantine Empire, because it is a part of European history. Also, "scholastic" is historically ambivalent for Christian Catholicism as well as Christian Ortodoxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.96.225 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the introduction to Plato in the middle ages is misleading, if not erroneous. Just read the Wiki entry on Medieval Philosophy: "Early Christian thought, particularly in the patristic period, tends to be intuitional and mystical, and is less reliant on reason and logical argument. It also places more emphasis on the sometimes mystical doctrines of Plato, and less upon the systematic thinking of Aristotle[10]. Much of the work of Aristotle was unknown in the West in this period. Scholars relied on translations by Boethius into Latin of Aristotle's Categories, the logical work On Interpretation, and his Latin translation of Porphyry's Isagoge, a commentary on Aristotle's Categories [11]." That seems to be the opposite of what the article on Plato indicates. As far as my understanding, Aristotle didn't become influential until the late middle ages, after Aquinas. Earlier philosophers, especially Augustine, were influenced in the least by Neo-platonism, if not the actual works of Plato. True, Plato's original texts weren't available until the Renaissance of the middle ages (Aristotle around 12th c.), but to give the appearance that Plato disappeared until the Renaissance isn't quite accurate. If anything, Plato, through Augustine, influenced Medieval Christian thinking far more than Aristotle and it was only with the emergence of scholasticism in the high middle ages that Aristotelian influences gave rise to the slow transformation into the Renaissance.

Note what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says on the topic: "Still, while it important to emphasize this absence of primary texts of Greek philosophy in the Latin Middle Ages, it is also important to recognize that the medievals knew a good deal about Greek philosophy anyway. They got their information from (1) some of the Latin patristic authors, like Tertullian, Ambrose and Boethius, who wrote before the knowledge of Greek effectively disappeared in the West, and who often discuss classical Greek doctrines in some detail; and (2) certain Latin pagan authors such as Cicero and Seneca, who give us (and gave the medievals) a great deal of information about Greek philosophy.

During the first part of the Middle Ages, Platonic and neo-Platonic influences dominated philosophical thinking. "Plato himself does not appear at all, but Platonism is everywhere," as Gilson has said. (Gilson [1955], p. 144.[11]) This situation prevailed until the recovery of Aristotle in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Hence, even though it is sometimes still done, it is quite wrong to think of mediaeval philosophy as mainly just a matter of warmed-over commentaries on Aristotle. For most of the Middle Ages by far, Aristotle was of decidedly secondary importance. This of course is not to deny that when Aristotle did come to dominate, he was very dominant indeed and his influence was immense." 173.32.73.1 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This article presently states that  This appears to contradict itself: if it is meant (as I think) that the scholastics did not have Plato in the original Greek, then the first sentence should include that rider. If it is meant that they did not have access to Plato in Latin, then the latter sentence is wrong. Most people regard access to a decent translation as comprising access to a work, eg the Bible - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect citations and misquotes
The beginning of the section 'Recurrent themes' contains two incorrect references (29 and 30). Both are supposedly from 'Twenty Greatest Philosophy Books' by James Garvey, but they are misquotes because neither Plato nor Garvey's book have actually said this. So these should be removed. Also, the reference itself contains the price of the book which seems inappropriate. Can someone with editing rights please remove these?
 * Done. Thanks for catching this.  RJC  TalkContribs 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit bizarre - the books are very well known and indeed are on google books too, so a simple google search finds the quotes. eg. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9NrV2ccBF0IC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%22red+or+juicy+and+red+or+crunchy+and+red%22&source=web&ots=20zrSiynAP&sig=hccrktf6Cp8QXuYPHeioHaTzNa8&hl=en&ei=8Ds4SbDcHI2YQ-Ct0KAP&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

With this in mind, the stated reason for removing hte passage is faulty, although the objection about pricing stands, so I have removed that. If there is a scholarly objection to the analysis, let's hear it by all means!Gemtpm (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you do an IP check you'll find that user Gemtpm is banned user Docmartincohen, Wikigiraffes, Wooly Sheep, Wikisquirrels, etc, etc. He's up to no good here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.8.249.162 (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, now. His link edits make sense and his information is verifiable:  you have two vandalism warnings on your talk page.  And I doubt very much that you are a WP:CHECKUSER-enabled account that just happens to be posting anonymously rather than logging in.  RJC  TalkContribs 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah mate, I wasn't asking you, I was telling you. Ask SlimVirgin, Phil Sandifer or David Gerrard to check out Gemtpm's edits, particularly the very first edits he did on this account (which exactly mirrors the kind of activity Docmartincohen, and his various Sockpuppets, were involved in), see what they think. If you're really interested, you should check out the activities of a user called "Flash" on Wikipedia Review, where he states that he managed to get Jeremy Stangroom's wiki entry semi-protected. Flash is Docmartincohen. Stangroom's entry was semi-protected after Gemtpm's edits (vandalism, actually). Anyway, I don't care. Just trying to save you - and everybody else - some bother here. (My IP address is a proxy. I'm away from the UK, and I can't access UK content - which I need to do (for work) - without using it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.8.249.162 (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether this user is banned or not, it is still a misquote. The article suggests that it was Plato that said all these things about red and crunchy. It is in fact a discussion posed by the author (Garvey) to elucidate some of Plato's ideas. That should be explained in the text, rather than just putting a reference to the book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.159.211 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As has been established above, the words in the article are NOT Plato's, but Garvey's gloss. That's not to say it should not be included at all, but it is rather questionable. It's very difficult to create the bridge between G. and P. here (mostly because G. aggravatingly does not tell us which dialogues he is talking about). There should be a much better way to summarize Plato's epistemology using a mixture of primaries and secondaries without attributing a secondary source to Plato verbatim. (Oh, and can we keep the caption to 21st century language?) CaveatLector Talk Contrib 10:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Platonic Scholarship and mathematical logic
In the "Platonic Scholarship" section, it is claimed that Plato inspired the advances towards a mathematization of logic. This is true only in the restricted sense that at least Frege and Gödel (and B. Russel at the time when he was writing 'Principia Mathematica') were Platonic Realists as regards the mathematical entities. This point of view (that mathematical entities have some kind of reality, as oposed to the Kronecker's view that they are just the work of men) is not relevant to the results they produced. Thus I believe it misleading to claim that Plato's work had any influence whatsoever in theirs. On the other hand, saying that Kurt Gödel, Alonzo Church, and Alfred Tarski were 'followers' of Gottlob Frege is a curious way of shortening the history of mathematical logic. If some reference has to be made, redirecting to the article on mathematical logic would be more convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.139.225 (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Theaetetus
Is the Theaetetus really a middle dialog and not a late one? I thought it was put in the group with the Sophist and the Statesman since they are all dramatically linked. 129.133.141.156 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the whole early-middle-late business is groundless and question-begging speculation, but all we can do is report what sources say. We can't correct them.   RJC  TalkContribs 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New external link suggestion
The following is a link to a new online text, Approaching Plato: A Guide to the Early and Middle Dialogues, that may be of interest to readers of the Plato article (and also articles covering many of the dialogues):

http://campus.belmont.edu/philosophy/Book.pdf

Perhaps someone with the access to do so will consider adding this to the "External Links" section of the Plato entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.124 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

History
We are learning about this in english class and none of this information on this website will help you. TRUST ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.196.160 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Faro0485 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plato and occult
Should the term "occult" be refered to on the article? Some of the following may refer to this: Alien Wisdom, p. 142;

Eusebius. 13.12.1f.;

Natural History, XXX: 3;

The Greeks and the Irrational, p. 233 n. 70;

Proclus, In Rem Publicam Platonis, quoted from Bidez & Cumont, Les Mages Hellenisees, t. II, p. 159.

Stromata, Book V, Chap 14

 Faro0485 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neoplatonism certainly had some mystical aspects, but it is generally agreed that Neoplatonism differed from Plato's thought.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
whats the etymology? is it from the word platon meaning spreading? --59.99.248.179 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)