Talk:Plato/Archive 7

Plato a defender of slavery?
Plato is a member of the "Defenders of slavery" category. Does he belong there? Pollinosisss (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He most certainly does not... he explicitly sides against enslaving fellow greeks in the republic although opens the possibility for enslaving foreigners. This seems more a product of the time in the book and his rejection of enslaving other greeks seems to be the major point he makes on the topic and as such any reference to Plato as a supporter of slavery seems wrong - thepossumdance
 * Plato has since been removed from the category. It didn't make any sense for him to be there. Pollinosisss (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Carl Sagan was of the opinion that Plato and Pythagoreans advocated a mind/body separation in order to justify slavery (your mind is free, not body), see COSMOS, Episode 7, "The Backbone of Night" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_966RzTF6k#t=4m42s 203.97.255.148 (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go out on a limb and say that Carl Sagan is not a reliable source on Plato. Or, if that is too harsh, I will say that his views on ancient Greek philosophy are so far outside of the mainstream that he falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, Carl Sagan calls out Plato for rejecting empiricism whole sale and endorsing slavery as long as you don't enslave fellow countrymen because of some weak rationalization that mind and body are separate, and, since we don't have to bother with experimentation because of some hand waving about a cave, that must be right. Sagan must have been a total nut job for calling that out.
 * "He most certainly does not... he explicitly sides against enslaving fellow greeks in the republic although opens the possibility for enslaving foreigners." You cannot possibly be serious. Your statement isn't even internally consistent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).  By your logic, Southern White slave owners (and many Northerners as well) didn't endorse or support slavery because they were totally not on board with enslaving other white people. 174.102.21.5 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Plato did not give that argument in defense of slavery, so Sagan is most certainly a nut job for calling Plato out on it. Sagan is about as good a source for intellectual history as Marx is for economic theory or chiropracty is for medicine.  RJC  TalkContribs 01:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's rather a bold strategy, comparing Sagan to alternative medicine practitioners while defending a philosopher who rejected empiricism. Sagan is hardly the only modern critic of Plato.  Karl Popper, for example, criticizes Plato for, among other things, prescribing totalitarianism and rejecting empiricism.  The crux of Carl Sagan's argument is that Plato, being a product of his time, implicitly accepted slavery as the natural order and that his philosophies are thus, necessarily, deeply influenced by such societal norms.  His argument is that Plato's rejection of empiricism grew out of Ancient Greece's economic dependence on slavery because it provided a seemingly rational justification for disregarding inconsistencies and contradictions in the real world.  A perfectly rational argument. 174.102.21.5 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

??!! although opens the possibility for enslaving foreigners.??!! how about sounds like an defense of slavery to me. so if I am only for the enslavement of Mexicans but vehemently against it for Ecuadorans I can a defender of freedom. according to Plato there are slaves in the "Ideal" world. Republic [433d] "that resides in the guardians, or whether this is the chief cause of its goodness, the principle embodied in child, woman, slave, free, artisan, ruler, and ruled, that each performed his one task as one man and was not a versatile busybody." put him back in the defenders camp. -The lesser Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.100.166 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Proslavery has a section whose title is "Need for a defense" that starts with this paragraph:


 * "Until the middle of the 18th century, slavery was practiced with little challenge anywhere in the world. For centuries philosophers as varied as Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke accepted slavery as part of a proper social system."


 * Therefore, until the middle of the 18th century there were not discussions between defenders of enslavement and defenders of abolition, and then it is not appropriate to categorize thinkers, politicians, etc on these premises. It seems reasonable that the category "defenders of slavery" should not include persons living before the 18th century.--Auró (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies for coming to this discussion somewhat late in the game. First, there were anti-slavery arguments in classical Athens and in the Hellenistic period. The Stoics and the Cynics both opposed slavery. Aristotle gives an intellectual defense of slavery. So it's not true that we're unable to classify pre-18th century thinkers as pro- or anti-slavery. Second, however, whether or not Plato was a supporter of slavery is controversial. One of the most influential Plato scholars of the 20th century, Gregory Vlastos, wrote several articles about it. So putting Plato in a list of pro- or anti-slavery thinkers is probably inappropriate, though discussing the issue is probably fine on the Wikipedia page. It's much less controversial that Aristotle supported slavery, so he would probably belong on any such list.68.80.219.115 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This Article is Terrible
Honestly, one of the worst philosophy articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Secondly, I'd like to know what crack Paul August is smoking that he needs "verification" that Plato is the most essential philosopher in the Western tradition. Can he possibly be serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what you wrote in the article: "He is widely considered the most essential figure in the development of philosophy, especially the Western philosophical tradition." Such a strong statement needs substantiation. Paul August &#9742; 20:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Most essential" is confusing and poorly worded. "Widely considered" is a bit ambiguous as well. What's the relevant class? And how many people within that class have to believe something for it to be widely believed? I doubt, say, more than half of contemporary philosophers working in the English language think that Plato was the most important figure in the development of philosophy (not sure about "most essential"). Usually, Aristotle and sometimes Kant top Plato in rankings on Brian Leiter's blog. If the thought is that less than half of the relevant class needs to believe something for it to be widely considered to be the case, then it's probably true of many philosophers that they are widely considered to be the most important philosopher. Anyway, this sentence would probably have to be re-written to be something that could be substantiated.68.80.219.115 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede is especially heinous. It should be deleted and entirely re-written. Entirely too many know-nothings at wikipedia. If you want real knowledge, go somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe trying quoting Whitehead's remark that philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato and Aristotle? And yeah, I don't think this article is much good, but rewriting without reference to sources will just result in more blather. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Whitehead's quote is already given, but even Whitehead limits the scope of his remark to the "European philosophical tradition", not all of philosophy, and I suspect that Whitehead was probably indulging in a bit of hyperbole. I think the current "He is considered an essential figure in the development of philosophy, especially the Western tradition", along with Whitehead's quote is probably sufficient. Paul August &#9742; 00:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul August is wrong, and I have to come back here to say what a truly terrible Philosophy article this is. By far, one of the worst written and least informative philosophy articles on Wikipedia. Kingshowman (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a single word on Plato's Ontological argument for the existence of God? Who wrote this article? A kabal of atheist know-nothings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.4 (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at some of the prose from the lead, shall we? " Plato's writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts" Who writes this garbage? Is the writer of this sentence even fluent in English? My guess is no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It was overwritten by a scholar, though published, has filled the article with her conjectures. notice the repeated references to her work

Plato a founder of Christianity?
This article says that Plato was a founder of many Western Religions (ok) especially Christianity. This is not ok. Christ wasn't even born yet. Christianity did not yet exist. Plato was not a Christian in any way shape or form. It could say that he was a major influence on Christian theologians especially early ones like Augustine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilpaul (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandatory Page Feedback
Hello! I'm taking a class that requires me to use the talk page of an article to say whether the page needs improvements or not. I don't believe that this page requires any edits because all of the information seems to apply to the topic of the page and all viewpoints presented seem balanced and fair. Ompetroccia (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016
The birth date of Plato is stated to be after his death which is obviously impossible and needs changing

Camzo96 (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The date order is perfectly correct. As Plato was born before the Birth of Christ (BC) (or Before the Common Era (BCE)), negative numbers are used for the years during which Plato lived.  So in terms of years, a larger negative number is earlier than a smaller negative number.  Therefore it's perfectly correct for Plato to be born around 424 BC and to die around 348 BC.
 * In case you're wondering, people living at Plato's time would not of actually used this particular dating system. The Greeks had their own approach to working out dates that was quite different to what we now use.--Chewings72 (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Rearrangement proposal
I propose to rearrange the section "Biography", segregating the content that relates to the influence of other earlier philosophers on Plato, and put it in a new section with title "Intellectual influences on Plato".--Auró (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plato. 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/20071205153424/http://poiesis.nlx.com/display.cfm?clientId=0&advquery=toc.sect.ipj.1.2&infobase=postoc.nfo&softpage=GetClient42&view=browse to http://poiesis.nlx.com/display.cfm?clientId=0&advquery=toc.sect.ipj.1.2&infobase=postoc.nfo&softpage=GetClient42&view=browse
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010162923/http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/A088 to http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/A088

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Original era
I have effectively reverted by Rusty Lugnuts and changed back to BC/AD, pointing to WP:ERA since BC/AD dating was in the original on 29 October 2001 and apparently most of the next 16 years. It's been discussed before. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Dubious quote in the "Education" section
The fact that one may find an author advancing some ideas, and that a page number and a citation may be provided, does not, in any way, indicate that the provided information is of any interest or accuracy. In the education section of this article, we can read that "W. A. Borody argues that an Athenian openness towards a wider range of sexuality may have contributed to the Athenian philosophers' openness towards a wider range of thought, a cultural situation Borody describes as "polymorphously discursive." How a certain "Athenian openness towards a wider range of sexuality" relates to Plato's intellectual formation, is, at least, unclear. Such a claim about Athenian sexuality is neither proven nor illustrated by any argument; and an explanation of such an openness would be more than welcome : what does it relate to, and to which closedness does it compare? Borody mentions a "wider range of thought"; wider that whose thought? What does "polymorphously discursive" mean, and how does it relate to Plato's philosophy? This citation contains a certain number of assumptions the author does not prove within the citation itself : even if its contents were true, the citation would require much more support, by other authors and works. I suggest this citation be removed, or at least be marked as "dubious". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.44.60 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The subject of "Greek love" or Greek sexuality is controversial, as it is clearly expressed in the Wikipedia article about this matter. Considering this, and also the fact that the reference for the sentence is based in a single primary source, and all the reasons contained in the above comment, I am of the opinion of removing the sentence.--Auró (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Done.--Auró (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
This part:


 * However, it must be taken into account that the ideal city outlined in the Republic is qualified by Socrates as the ideal luxurious city, examined to determine how it is that injustice and justice grow in a city (Republic 372e). According to Socrates, the "true" and "healthy" city is instead the one first outlined in book II of the Republic, 369c–372d, containing farmers, craftsmen, merchants, and wage-earners, but lacking the guardian class of philosopher-kings as well as delicacies such as "perfumed oils, incense, prostitutes, and pastries", in addition to paintings, gold, ivory, couches, a multitude of occupations such as poets and hunters, and war.

This isn't entirely true, as that would preclude the classes of artist, poet, writer and philosopher, and would thus preclude knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Even though that's what Socrates states, it's not meant to be interpreted as an absolute. In fact, the only ones unnecessary to his state are the aristocrats, and those concerned with acquisition of wealth or power and the warrior class of guardians, which he replaces with philosophers, who should lead other people from the den of ignorance. He in fact discards/disposes of the entire idea of a warrior guardian class in book VI, I believe; see my notes in Talk:Republic#Comedy. Although I doubt 'king' in the context of philosopher is meant to be taken literally either; or rather, it's about the adherence to principles such as philosophy, justice, truth, wisdom, etc... 184.146.142.94 (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, this part:


 * Aristocracy is the form of government (politeia) advocated in Plato's Republic. This regime is ruled by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason.

As I noted previously on that talk page. This is incorrect. That is Plato's 'imagined aristocracy', as that's not what aristocracy means to him, or to most people familiar with the term. The 2 best examples are as follows (from the talk page):


 * (end of book IX) "I understand; you mean that he will be a ruler in the city of which we are the founders, and which exists in idea only; for I do not believe that there is such an one anywhere on earth?" - "But whether such an one exists, or ever will exist in fact, is no matter;" (biblical parts omitted)

Thus proving that such a state has never existed, and defining aristocracy in its original sense. Wiki needs to stop subverting the word aristocracy, because that's not what it means in practicality, only in the dreams of philosophers and in some cases of political rhetoriticians. :\


 * (beginning of book I) "I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban, or some other rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of his own power, was the first to say that justice is 'doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.'"

Thus defined as I have always defined it - Aristocracy; those in 'power' who 'believe' themselves to be of the 'best' stock/breed/race/class. (key words 'who had a great opinion of his own power'), since 'the best' is a mostly subjective term.

The question I'm really asking is: Is it liked by the gods because it is 'the best', or is it 'the best' because it is liked by the 'gods' (aka aristocrats)? Think about that...

Most opinions seem to be of the sort that he was defining a just state, when he began with his description of aristocracy, or 'the first state', but he was in fact describing Sparta (Lacedaemon), an unjust and self-contradictory state; a parody of a state, leaving it up to the reader to realize how injustice becomes justice if you simply take his word for it, thus chasing a shadow. He later claims, in order to confuse the matter further, that the state just described is Sparta and defines it as timocracy; twice marking sarcastically that Sparta/Crete are often held in 'high regard'; this after the reign of the Thirty Tyrants... 184.146.142.94 (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's the part where he places Crete and Sparta before oligarchies, as timocracies (beginning of book VIII):


 * That question, I said, is easily answered: the four governments of which I spoke, so far as they have distinct names, are, first, those of Crete and Sparta, which are generally applauded; what is termed oligarchy comes next;

But that's the exact state he just he described in the previous chapters (Sparta), naming it aristocracy; as he says 'the four governments of which I spoke', and he already spoke of 'the first' in this ironic twist; thus redefining it as timocracy (the first of the four). I seriously hope society is not modeled after the more farcical interpretation of it actually being the 'ideal state'. :D

Although it's unclear to me if he actually delineated between Crete/Sparta in his previous descriptions. I only picked up the references to Spartan social structure and polity in those statements. If references to Crete do exist, they are unknown to me. 184.146.142.94 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed the first paragraph given above, seems to lack a reference, appear to be interpretation. IP, Plato describes these "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth" (Republic 475c) and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a doctor and his medicine. According to him, sailing and health are not things that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. A large part of the Republic then addresses how the educational system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings. Thus a distinction from the typical understanding of aristocracy, to my understanding never tested before. prokaryotes (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The 'typical' interpretation of the Aristocracy? Of course they've always thought of themselves as 'the best' stock/breed/race/class; and that's how they defined it. But everyone else, not just Plato, defines it as those who 'believe themselves' to be the best; subjectivity. I've now trawled through several anti-aristocratic articles here on wiki (Faust, Hamlet, Republic, etc...) and all of them appear to be pro-aristocratic? Wiki resembles a literal farce for pseudo-intellectuals at this point. 76.69.79.242 (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Socrates is extremely important for Plato, but...
Please on the Wikipedia page titled Socrates, we must add more fragmented citations about Socrates, from people of Socrates' generation, or one generation after. We need more exo-Platonic citations, in order we can understand who Socrates really was. In ancient times, they had other texts about Socrates written by people close to his times, but complete texts are all losts. Only some comments do exist, but we haven't mentioned them all. We must be specific about the near meta-Socratic period, because many years afar from Socrates' death, people commented only the Platonic pseudo-Socrates but not the actual Socrates.

The actual Socrates, probably was very close to the Platonic one but:
 * 1) the actual Socrates did speak to philosophically unready people during their work, and these average people didn't understand what the philosophical method is, so they believed that Socrates was merely blasphemous about them personally and about tradition. Analytical thought is perceived as mere blasphemy by the unready mind. Plato was wiser enough to change his approach per public, even to choose public.
 * 2) the actual Socrates did not conclude his dialogues as strictly as Plato. Socrates was more agnostic about conclusions, but Plato forces his characters to promote his social status and the Athenian status quo


 * we need more fragmented citations from other people who lived close to Socrates' time to support that

The comments above were unsigned by others, response follow:

Frankly, your second point only holds true if you're reading Plato incorrectly. Republic, as a perfect example, is completely misinterpreted here on wiki. In fact, it's some sort of sick joke; a travesty. Republic is a comedy about Athenian politics, it does not support the status quo and in fact opposes it. Various other texts like Crito, for example, make jokes about the Gods not being real, and sarcastically remark that the craftsmen was the original maker of the bed, and God is 3 times removed from the truth... These misconceptions arise from the poor level of reading comprehension in modern society, and the 'official narrative' published by 'trusted' or 'credible' (or rather incredible) sources, such as wiki and other pseudo-intellectuals. 76.69.79.242 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

IAR?
Personally, I will not engage anymore in this struggle about "Form" and "Idea", beyond stating my opinion that capitalizing technical terms eases necessary discrimination from their every day meaning. The difference in meaning when talking about an "idea", and reflecting the aspects of an "Idea" in an ignorant "form", or respecting some "Form" is not negligible.

Perhaps one could discuss obliteration of any capitals (english) in English, and of course in German too, which is probably the unruly source of this behaviour against all WP-rules, even when capitalizing is targeted to ease some deficit in erudition. Purgy (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017
The last sentence in the second paragraph - " This would justify the superiority of Christianity over Hellenism because Moses predates Plato—thus the original source of this wisdom is the root of Christianity and not Hellenistic culture.[12]" should be cut; this page is no place for religious value judgements. Redandblue32 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's sourced to
 * "God the Creator, God the Creation: Numenius' Interpretation of Genesis 1:2 (frg. 30) by Robbert M. Van Den Berg"
 * with no link to this work. This is the most frustrating thing about people adding sources here that aren't online: there's no real way to confirm anything. Do you have access to this? What does it say?  City O f  Silver  08:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Try checking for the book on Google Books or another library. ToThAc (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The heading of an article should consist in an introduction and summary of the article content. The influence of Plato on religions, and particularly Christianity, is clear, but it happens that for the time being has not been treated in the body of the article. My opinion is to suppress all information related to this subject from the heading, until it is properly treated in the body.--Auró (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Done.--Auró (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "Christianity IS superior to Hellenism" it says "Christianity WOULD be superior to Hellenism" that is, if the preceding likening of Moses to Plato were truthful.The New Classic (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018
Plato is very synonomous with the Three-Classical Problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.133.59.10 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Invention of writing
Was it Plato who said that the invention of writing was a terrible idea, because it would worsen human memory? If it was, and some one can reliable sources for it, this could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Plato never said that the invention of writings was a "terrible idea," but he does attribute the following story about the invention of writing to Socrates in his dialogue Phaedrus. The translation here is from Benjamin Jowett and is in the public domain:
 * "At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality."
 * Plato's intention in telling this story was not to show that the invention of writing was a "terrible idea," but rather to show that every great invention bears unforeseen negative consequences that the inventor cannot possibly be aware of when he invents it and that the inventor is never the best judge of an invention's usefulness. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, Plato's greatness is compared to other philosophers such as: Kant and Aquinas. Besides the fact that this statement is highly subjective and has therefore no place in a neutral article, it is not particularly explained or proven why those philosophers might equal Plato in greatness. In addition, since I assume this article and this page mainly to be for people who don't know much yet about philosophy and/or Plato, this information isn't really relevant either. Because of all mentioned above, I would suggest to remove that sentence from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Γεωργος ζευς (talk • contribs) 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is worth pointing out that the sentence you are referring to is a direct quotation from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and it is not talking about how "great" Plato is, but rather his reputation among philosophers today. The sentence says: "...perhaps only Aristotle (who studied with him), Aquinas and Kant would be generally agreed to be of the same rank." The key words here are "generally agreed to be." I do think, however, that the body of the article (quite unfortunately) does not describe enough about the enduring influence of Plato's philosophy on western civilization, which makes this statement in the lead largely unsupported by the body. Also, I think it would be better for us to have our own description of Plato's reputation, rather than simply quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Inadvertent imperialist implication in introduction
In the introduction I found this statement:


 * He is widely considered the pivotal figure in the development of philosophy, especially the Western tradition.

If Plato is considered the pivotal figure in the development of philosophy, period, then that means he is considered the pivotal figure in the development of philosophy in Greece, India, China, and so on. This is absurd because, after all, these other traditions were independent of the Greek tradition, so that Plato had nothing to do with what happened in their development; it cannot then be said that anything in those traditions pivoted about Plato.

The obvious problem is that the editor uses the convention of applying the term philosophy broadly to denote intellectual traditions whose practitioners did not call their traditions "philosophy." But that is a little like using English to denote all other languages, because no general word like language exists to denote them all as specimens of the same thing. It is therefore a convenience.

But the statement I have called to attention is not a matter of convenience—its implications are rather imperialist; it is the result of the unthinkingly reflexive use of the broad sense of philosophy.

We must be careful not to treat the conventional use of philosophy in the broad sense as if it were not controversial, never problematic, or never simply wrong, nor treat as wrong or politically incorrect the narrow use of philosophy to denote the tradition whose practitioners have used philosophy as the name for what they do because one of their practitioners coined that name early in the tradition. Because let's face it: when any ordinary person in "the West" uses the term philosophy, they do not intend to refer to what ordinary people call "Eastern philosophy,"  but only to the tradition that began with Thales and that continues in the work of men and women like John Searle or Martha Nussbaum. Not to acknowledge this is also imperialist, for the refusal to acknowledge it rests on the presupposition that Indians and the Chinese themselves consider what they do to be the same as what we do, and believe it to be appropriate for us "to include" them in our category. Sounds downright patronizing to me.

As a compromise, I am going to distinguish the two senses and represent Plato as pivotal in our tradition, as influential in ours as Confucius, etc. Wordwright (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018
Add Diotima of Mantinea to list of influences for her contributions to Plato's notion of Platonic love DiotimaLives (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The article on Platonic Love discusses that Plato based his conception of love based on Diotima's understanding of love (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love#Philosophical_interpretation). That article cites Rojcewicz, R. (1997) as a source. DiotimaLives (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SITH   (talk)   21:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Diotima and Plato
The following quote is moved here from my TP (let's keep action in Las Vegas):


 * I do not know whether it is meaningful to give a page number in some reprint of a dialogue, but for me it were ridiculous to cite a treatment on transference with respect to the affective phenomenon "love" as sourcing an influence of a hypothesized person on Plato (rather disjoint areas of research: Psycho-Docs are no philosophical experts). I also never would claim an influence of Lady MacBeth on W. Shakespeare. Since my thoughts and concvictions on adequateness of fantasized figures having influence on Plato are irrelevant, I end on my discretion the engagement with this feminist activism by correcting the transcription of the Greek name (there is no "υ" in Diotima). Kindly keep further interactions to the relevant TP, please. Purgy (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Large-scale restructuring
In a sequence of recent edits, MisterCake has radically changed much of the article's content. I don't cast judgement on the quality of the edits; only calling attention to provoke discussion of large-scale changes. I haven't stepped through individual edits to see how it's changed. It's very difficult to compare just looking at the difference between the earliest and most recent edit. MisterCake, I would suggest holding off on further changes while your work is checked by others, and help aid in that process to avoid the risk of complete reversion per WP:OWN. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been mostly copy-edits, rearranging material already there, but I'll slow down. Cake  (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a summary:
 * I'm no scholar, so if I removed anything it was only because it seemed like too much info or redundant or unfitting for an encyclopedia. For example, the biggest change as far as deleting content was probably removing the block of text from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy in the lead. A fine source, but the same thing about philosophy being Plato's invention was quoted twice, once in a source in the lead and another time in another section of the lead in the article body. Also, as I understand, using another encyclopedia as a source in an encyclopedia is usually poor practice, though I still left the former instance of it. It also said questionable things like e. g. only Aristotle, Aquinas, and Kant are comparable in terms of great philosophers. But one, Plato and Aristotle are in leagues of their own, and two, if you must include Aquinas and Kant as comparable, it is hard to imagine the reason to exclude Hume. Considerations like that had me just delete it.
 * Any other deletions should be pretty minor, things like over-linking or grammar or word choice or saying "Seneca said Plato was cool." and then, after sourcing Seneca, relaying the quote in Latin. That seems superfluous. Still, I have not deleted all instances of that.
 * Additions have been fairly minor as well. I included Platonism (seems important...) and Augustine (it already mentioned the "western religious influence", but not christianity) and platonic love and platonic solids in the lead. The lead should probably reference e. g. Atlantis as well. I elaborated slightly on the presocratic influence, the mathematical influence of Plato with e. g. Eudoxus and the platonic solids, and the influence of Heraclitus and Parmenides.  I added a bit on ethics and on the themes of definitions and ignorance which amounts to but a few sentences so far.
 * Other than that it's been merely rearranging and "wikifying" with section headings. The main rearranging was the "notes" section. There were lengthy quotes and e. g. relaying of the various historians position on his birth year in the references. I moved these to either the body or the notes section rather than have both e. g. "Russell, History of Western philosophy, p. 45" and a paragraph about what Diogenes Laertius thought Plato smelled like in the references. Cake  (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those generally sound like improvements to me. Thanks for explaining. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, although I don't take any issue with your edits, to avoid wasting work I would recommend slowing down and maybe taking breaks from the article. If you make many edits in a row without others contributing in between, you are more likely to be reverted for almost any reason. (I'm speaking from experience.) If you can't resist working on the Plato article, you might want to look into copying the page to your sandbox as a draft, where you can make as many small edits as you want and bring them into the live article more gradually. This not only reduces the amount of edits and appearance of ownership, but makes it easier for other editors to step through and vet the changes. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to make you warn me again. I was fixing the several bits of over-linking of the dialogues and found a sentence or two to brush up and a few pictures to add. I will try to refrain. Also, while I do know of the sandbox, I appreciate the reminder. For example, I've thought about adding the interpretation of the Phaedo (in particular, the Opposites argument) dialogue which sees it as Plato's response to the pluralists, but avoided that for obvious reasons. Given Plato followed Heraclitus and Parmenides, yet went a different direction than the pluralists, he must have had some kind of response. The Sophist dialogue is also seen as his response to Parmenides. Cake  (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Note style
This is a minor change I'd like to make but it's always good to check first. Is anyone opposed to the simpler 'efn' note style for footnotes? These appear as single letter [a] instead of a 'n' and a number [n 1]. I find the efn style easier to edit and more intuitive for readers to understand. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, I feel I've seen several different styles for this. Just went with the one I am used to using. The main issue for the introduction of the notes section is when there is something which should be a footnote yet is also say a lengthy quote or something which itself needs a citation in the references section. Cake  (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Aristophanes in the primary sources
Kind of bizarre to have the Wasps but not the Clouds. Cake (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional recommendations to improve the article

 * UpdateNerd has asked me stop, but I still see much room for improvement, and I suppose Plato is a big enough character to require multiple editors input
 * The myth, narration, and recurrent themes section seem to stick out, and the article could flow much easier if e. g. "Themes in Plato's dialogues" or whatever was made its own section, including all of these.
 * The Sophist should be added to the Heraclitus and Parmenides section, given it is Plato's reasons for not being a Parmenidean, supposedly.
 * Protagoras should be added to the ethics section, given its central point is that virtue is innate rather than learned.
 * Some dialogues other than the Republic should be referenced in the metaphysics section, e. g. Phaedo
 * The metaphysics section should be longer in general, and not just about the cave allegory.
 * The distinction between Plato and Socrates could be made clearer, e. g. should "Socrates' idea" read "Plato's idea"?
 * Do we cover contemporary, lower case platonism as well as upper-case, ancient Platonism? It seems to some extent we must do in the legacy section, hence the mention of e. g. Frege. If so, then Paul Benacerraf deserves mention as the greatest contemporary critic of platonism.
 * Should an encyclopedia cite other encyclopedias?
 * Guess it's cool to have an esoteric bust in the esoteric, unwritten doctrines section, but surely the busts in the Vatican or in Munich do more justice for the usual look given to Plato.
 * One should note his Epistles are highly dubious. Cake  (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving the cave allegory makes me feel even stronger about my first suggestion, and moving it to after the philosophy section. One shouldn't be talking about the Cave allegory before talking about Plato's philosophy. Cake  (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll come back to this talk page with a better treatment of the Forms to be reviewed. Cake  (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, the Forms are said to provide seven things: Definitions, standards, unchanging objects, timeless objects, one over many, knowledge, and certainty. Given the first, maybe the bit about definitions in the themes can be put there. Unchanging, timeless, and over and many can be mentioned together given the Parmenidean influence. The main question seems to me whether to bring up the forms against in the epistemology to mention knowledge and certainty, or to mention that along with the rest.  Cake  (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Gilbert Ryle is worth a mention in the sources. He was an Aristotelian, but wrote a book and encyclopedia entries on Plato. Cake  (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Link Aristotle
Hey folks, in the entire article the only mention of Aristotle is not linked to the article on Aristotle! This is probably a side effect of the insane practice of linking only the first instance of a link. (Please exert your immense influence as philosophers to alter this practice.) (Although on second thought, why so little mention of Aristotle in the main article? Maybe as the teacher Plato was more significant to Aristotle's life than his own life?). End transmission. -- Long-lost Wikipedian CH 2601:181:C300:55C4:CCEA:CDE5:52CE:CA27 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He's linked in the lead, and I don't see the reason for linking something more than once. As you can see above, I think there are many meaningful aspects missing from the article, including the legacy section. I agree with you Aristotle should get some mention there. As others have put it, in distinction to those who think of them as opposites, Aristotle is the world's most famous Platonist. I don't know about "more significant to his life than his own life". Maybe that works for Socrates, but not Aristotle. What is true is that Aristotle was his student for 20 years, and while he may have disagreed with some aspects of the Forms, and over time the cleavage was between Platonists and Aristotelians, one should not forget that they would have both seen themselves as doing Athens-style philosophy, on the same 'team' against the sophists, Eleatics, Ionians, and so forth.  Cake  (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019
In the "Early Life" section, under the heading "Name", the name Aristocles does not mean "well named" as is stated there, but rather it means something more like "The best glory": a combination aristos (ἄριστος: best, noblest, bravest, most excellent) and kleos (κλέος: glory, fame, reputation). 130.113.109.217 (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done, by UpdateNerd in Special:Diff/894360139/895439158. Sam Sailor 10:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Plato's beard
In the image of the infobox of this article Plato has a beard, but is there any evidence that Plato had a beard?(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019: “Library resources about Plato/by Plato” appears to have been… uh, either vandalized or OVER-corrected?
Library resources creates and links to searches for “Platón” rather than to searches for “Plato.” Perhaps someone with good intentions thought “Ah, but his name IS Platón in Attic Greek, I’ll fix this!” or somethin’, or perhaps someone just subtly vandalized it. In either case, English-language searches for Platón turn up little to nothing of use. Could someone with edit privileges please fix this, so the box “Library resources about Plato/by Plato” no longer creates and links to searches for Platón, but instead creates and links to searches for Plato? Thanks! (Sorry, I’m a little new to this, please forgive my struggles with… all of this!) 66.167.64.114 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article links to "Plato" on the UPenn library, it's their website that redirects it to Platon. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that is downright strange. Thank you for your reply, thank you also for confirming the Plato article’s “Library resources” template is working normally for you. I did investigate more closely, and I do see that the library resources template’s “label” parameter is set to Plato… What I can’t fathom is what in the pipeline might be redirecting ALL of my queries — whether to my library, to another library, to Worldcat, or wherever, and whether by or about Plato — instead to a query for “Platón.” It’s not just one site, like my local library, redirecting to Platón for whatever reason — it’s every query from Wikipedia’s template out to any other resource. I’m leaving this protected edit request’s answered label at “yes” for now (and thank you for your reply!) to give me time to try querying “library resources” for Plato again from some other IP addresses, to see what happens. Because I can’t see why all my queries, and mine alone, to any library, and just for Plato, would redirect to Platón instead. – 66.167.64.114 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request
Remove improper sources. In the section tracing the myth that Plato met Jeremiah, there is a mention that Jewish sources mention this and it works according to their chronology. There is a link to the Hebrew book Torath Haolah. As can be seen, p 45 of this book does indeed mention Greek philosphers BOB IS MY BEST FRIEND learning from Jewish ones, but it seems to be Socrates studying with Asaf and Ahitofel and Aristotle studying with Solomon. However, while he uses the root QBL which generally means direct learning from teacher to student, here I do not think he means direct learning at all. Rather he means Socrates and Aristotle read Jewish books, because he continues that this should be possible as Alexander conquered Jerusalem. Therefore Solomon's library and all of the wisdom contained there should be accessible to Alexander's teacher Aristotle.

Since he is talking about book learning and doesn't mention Plato, there is no need to speculate as to how Jewish chronology fits with this myth. The reference should simply be removed.

A Jewish source for the myth is Abravanel's commentary on Jeremiah 1:6. There, he assumes the meeting could have taken place at least 10 years after the Temple was destroyed. But as to whether Abravanel assumed the Temple was destroyed in the 4th Century BCE or Plato lived in the 6th Century BCE, he makes no reference. He simply says that non-Jewish scholars mention the meeting. Please edit accordingly 66.108.31.114 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019
Remove line: "Hebrew-language chronology works[by whom?] argue that, based on seder hadoroth chronology, Jeremiah's final year of prophecy was 411 BCE (3350 HC), at which time Plato was a teenager[g] and that he initially perceived Jeremiah to be absurd.[49][need quotation to verify]"

I went through source [49] (Torath Haolah by Moshe Isserles), and it does not back up any of this vague statement. Plato is not even mentioned in the book. 66.108.31.114 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sceptre (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020
Hyperlink "school of thought" Longtime4321 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There are already many links in the lead, and since the School of thought article is limited, MOS:SEAOFBLUE should try to be avoided. Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 22:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

India
WP:EXCEPTIONAL; see here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Will Durant is a good source. That stackexchange website has a comment regarding how it was just taken from "The Disciples of Christ" article, however, I do not see any evidence of that by any scholarly source. Because Durant is well-respected, I think that his account is alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakespeare143 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Durant is just repeating mideval speculation; he's not asserting it to be true. Teishin (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that Durant is not asserting that it is a fact. However, he is saying that it is a possibility. Shakespeare143 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Later life and death
In the second paragraph of “later life and death” an approximation of between a kilometer and half a mile is used for six stadia. I’m inexperienced with Wikipedia editing standards, but it seems odd to combine two systems of measurement in one article, let alone one specific measurement. I would recommend replacing it with “between 800 and 1,000 meters” or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix51291 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Peacock" change
It isn't just a NYT article, but a research from one of the biggest universities in the world, plus I think that it doesn't even need any more citations. (Likewise Confucius is Confucius, each one for different cultures f.e). In many other significant people such as Karl Marx, Confucius, Charles Darwin etc you can find the same thing.Holloman123 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC):

Name
Is there any reason why the editors have chosen to omit referencing (even if marked as uncertain) Alexander of Miletus quoted by Diogenes Laertius in "Lives and Doctrines of Eminent Philosophers", bk III ch 4, Plato's given name of Aristocles, son of Ariston, of the deme Collytus? We find the same in several other sources - and while disputed by some - it is the only claim made by any of the traditions we have (ie no other sustainable claim is made in any of the sources).

We know his grandfather was called Aristocles for sure, so it is a perfectly rational view, supported by far more data than many other "facts" of ancient history which we accept as a given.

Historiaantiqua (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent redirects for Plato's dialogues
There are two redirects for Plato's dialogues (Plato's dialogues and Plato's Dialogues). The first one is broken (redirecting to a non-existent section Plato), the second one redirects to the section Plato. There is, however, also the section Plato to consider, so I am unsure what to do to make them consistent.

The article about Socrates uses the broken redirect in its second paragraph, so the question is of some importance. --Anselm Schmidt (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Works of Plato
There is no heading which clearly states where the works of Plato are listed. The current heading "History of Plato's dialogues" probably communicates effectively to those who understand Plato's works, but for those who don't (the primary person who will be searching for them I suspect), it's not perspicuous. Tojasonharris (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Linking "desires" to "Interpersonal attraction" isn't really Platonic
Per this: "In addition, the ideal city is used as an image to illuminate the state of one's soul, or the will, reason, and desires combined in the human body." Why does "desires" hyperlink to "Interpersonal attraction"? Done by some vandal with a sick sense of humor? Kind of funny, but not at all helpful. Someone, I think, should fix it. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
I would like to edit the Plato wiki page because I am attempting to remove all philosophers from the 'Philosophers' section and spread them into different sub-categories. Since Plato already has many sub-categories under 'Philosophers', I was just going to remove that category. Duel 2005 (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. EnIRtpf09b chat with me 11:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Article is much too long
This article is much too long, even for the most famous philosopher of all time. I'm hesitant to tag it though, because that might result in people unknowingly creating even more spinoff articles, of which there are already approximately one hundred. I've rewritten a few of the sections in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, a lot more will need to be summarized and moved to one of the many spinoff articles that already exist wherever relevant. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've also WP:BOLDly deleted the entire see also section. per WP:SEEALSO it's optional, and for someone like Plato it's surely going to be too long to be useful if it tries to work in even a fraction of the people who might be conceivably related or inspired. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed outline
It's quite a bit shorter now, probably the topics that are covered are about the right length even if the content is not ideal yet, but some important topics are still not covered at all. Here's a rough outline of what I think a comprehensive Plato article would look like:


 * Infobox/Lead - Follow things covered in the article, exclude pretty much anything else or it will get huge
 * Biography - Can probably be even shorter, most of the biographical information is suspect and requires heavy caveats and can be moved to the life of Plato article. Plato's name and Syracuse need to be at least mentioned.
 * Influences - These are probably the most important to discuss, Anaxagoras and Xenophanes are probably too much but would probably be next, if this is ever WP:SPINOUT into a full article they would probably be covered.
 * Socrates - can be expanded a bit with details on the trial, link out to trial
 * Pythagoreanism - Mentions both mystical and mathematical aspects, as well as community, probably is relatively good shape
 * Heraclitus and Parmenides - making the language more diplomatic, not relying on Heidegger's being/becoming interpretations when not needed.
 * Philosophy - can link out to Platonism, move relevant content there that doesn't fit here.
 * Theory of Forms - Most important Plato topic, needs to avoid getting technical.
 * Rhetoric - Poetry (Republic), Rhetoric (Gorgias, Republic, Phaedrus), Mythography (Atlantis, Myth of Er). Ion and Hippias could be moved to a spinout that doesn't seem to exist yet on Plato's aesthetics.
 * Platonic love - Not covered at all. Ladder (Symposium) vs chariot (Phaedrus).
 * Theory of Soul - Both the divisions of the soul (Phaedrus, Republic, Timaeus) and reincarnation/metempsychosis (Phaedo, Meno, Republic).
 * Epistemology - Amamnesis (Meno) and JTB (Theaetetus). Diaeresis (Sophist, Statesman) can probably be pushed to spinout article as a more advanced topic.
 * Form of the Good - Ethics should be restructured to this. Both simpler topics (Euthyphro, Gorgias, Protagoras) and more advanced like cardinal virtues and "The good" (Republic), but probably not Philebus. Protagoras probably a good lead in from epistemology.
 * Justice/Political philosophy - Mostly from Republic, with caveats on how literally it should be taken. Laws and Statesman aren't very commonly read and can be briefly mentioned and covered on the spinout.
 * Natural philosophy - Not covered at all. Should cover elements, world-soul, Demiurge (Timaeus)
 * Works
 * Themes - this should probably be abridges and restructured to transition better into the chronology
 * Chronology - this needs to be short, only focus on rough genres and a bit on the existence of a debate, too easy to get into the weeds
 * Authenticity - if it merits its own section it should be short, like chronology.
 * Legacy - no dedicated spinout, might be a useful article at some point.
 * Aristotle - Not covered at all (directly) but certainly no shortage of literature
 * Academy - Not Covered at all, can pull from Platonic academy article, touch on middle platonism and hellenistic philosophy.
 * Neoplatonism - Sort of covered in the unwritten doctrines and allegorical interpretations, should mention Plotinus, Iamblichus/Proclus, Christianity
 * Medieval - Primarily focus on Islamic and Byzantine, then scholastics
 * Renaissance - Ficino, Medici, Cambridge Platonists
 * Modern and Contemporary - Nietzsche, Heidegger, Popper, Gettier
 * See also - NO. Attractive nuisance.
 * Bibliography
 * Manuscript Transmission - mention large number of manuscripts and Stephanus at the minimum
 * List of translations - could be its own article, but focus here on complete works that are either recent or readable public domain ones in English.
 * Notes and references - footnotes should be standardized, more info should be pulled from fewer and more available places. Ideally very few ancient sources other than Plato, Aristotle, or Diogenes Laertius. Ideally more accessible sources on this article because there's more traffic, and books strongly preferred over journal articles unless the journal article is a primary source (e.g. Gettier)

Does anyone see anything I missed? Any topics that should/shouldn't be covered in the level of detail above? General feedback on the amount of coverage? &#32;- car chasm (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism; specifically that of Heidegger
Although I acknowledge that Heidegger criticised Plato (partially), I think that mentioning this alone would give readers the false impression that Heidegger was anti-Platonic, when he also very much side with Plato on certain issues especially over Aristotle, which is described elsewhere on Wikipedia. StrongALPHA (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The crit section is kinda a comedy section, giving Popper half a sentence William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of Sulla's role in ending the Academy
I would like to add a citation to the claim about Sulla destroying the Academy since the episode is not mentioned on Sulla's wikipedia page, and it conveys a possibly misleading impression that the Academy may have been targeted by Sulla for ideological or political reasons (like the Neo-Platonic Academy which was closed by Justinian).

In reality, Sulla did this purely because he was at war and he needed the trees of the Sacred Grove to make siege equipment. Here's a source.

I would add a mere blurb after "Sulla destroyed the Academy" ... "so that the trees and raw materials could be used as materiel"

Source: https://platosacademy.org/a-short-history-of-platos-academy/


 * Not done - This conclusion is not supported by your source, which only says that Sulla *did* use the trees to make siege equipment, not that that was his only reason for destroying the Academy. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)