Talk:Socrates/Archive 5

cryptic sentence in summary
The summary of the topic at the top of the page contains this line:

"it is unclear the degree to which Socrates himself is "hidden behind his 'best disciple', Plato"."

This is quite a cryptic sentence, it is unclear to me as a layman what it is supposed to mean. Does it mean the information about him is coloured by the only available accounts provided by Plato? Whatever the meaning I think it should be clarified with an explanation. The cited source is a physical book so it is not particularly easy to follow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.4.142 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * my understanding is - it means there is no way to know whether it's coloured ... or at least there is no way to categorically (absolutely) be sure... Whalestate (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

and ... Plato was a disciple, that is, he agreed with the subject of investigation by Socrates and the thought of Socrates, so he chose to be involved in Socrates's life (I think). Whalestate (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

< | Socrates | hidden | (Plato hid Socrates) > Whalestate (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

it is unclear the degree to which Socrates himself is "hidden behind his 'best disciple', Plato".

I don't know that it is really necessary to include a direct quote from Kofman, distinguished as she might be, when a writing of the quote out in a re-word is the usual means for adding material in any case. Why should she be particularily requiring a quoted inclusion...

Alternatives to the sentence
Whalestate (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Type 1
It isn't possible to know how much of Socrates is apparent through the agenda of Plato's own intentions for writing.

It isn't possible to really be sure if the real Socrates is portrayed in Plato's writings.

It isn't possible to know if Plato has been faithful to depicting Socrates for the transmission to future generations, and how much he used the ideas of Socrates for his own ends.

It isn't really possible for anyone to know if Plato has been faithful to depicting Socrates for the purposes of transmitting information on him as a person for future generations, and how much of the person Plato knew as Socrates has been mis-represented, used, or changed to suit the needs Plato had in writings the works that he did write, including Socrates as a figure.

Type 2
No-one will ever know whether Plato changed the image of Socrates as a figure in his portrayal of him within his works, or whether he kept a more strict attitude to retaining the true depiction, knowing Socrates was for history an important person, which future generations would need to know about.

No one will ever be able to know for sure how well Plato depicted the truth of Socrates as a person to people through his writings and how much he changed the depiction, caring less for truety to historical recounting, and more to the expounding of ideas for his own agenda.

hidden > obscure

analysis
Types presume Socrates did not depicted truthfully/faithfully/accurately because Plato changed the character of Socrates via the words in the dialogues, because his first priority was not to transmit for future generations exactly those things he had seen and heard while still a disciple/follower/adherent to Socrates (instead of not giving a true rendition or otherwise, for some other reason than being motivated to communicate his own thinkings). Whalestate (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can see of the book, it looks like this refers to a view Of Nietzsche. Perhaps it should be replaced with something clearer. Myrvin (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

info on < homosexuality of Socrates > via 1 source
Aristoxenus - Life of Socrates Socrates was about 17 years of age when he became involved with Archeleus and remained in partership with him for a number of years (p.212)

Socrates homosexual relationship is claimed to have resulted in him becoming a philosopher (thus improved him) (ref. head of p.208)

source

putting aside any doubts on the credibility of Aristoxenus' account - where is the evidence on his attitude(ref.96 - W.K.C.Guthrie again), it's his behaviour with regards to actively participating in homosexual relationship(s) which are the consideration aren't they? not his attitude. Whalestate (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

further evidence of him teaching Socrates
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesbio.html (The Lives of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius) - "...When Anaxagoras was condemned, he became a pupil of Archelaus the physicist; Aristoxenus asserts that Archelaus was very fond of him..."

Whalestate (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

flaws in Criticism section
a sentence under the heading - Criticisms

"Some controversy also exists about Socrates' attitude towards homosexuality[ref.96 - W.K.C.Guthrie]"

Does this sentence show any criticism of Socrates? The answer is no it doesn't, since homosexuality was permissable within Athens, and the mention of "controversy" provides no details of a criticism, the sentence is too vague. please see >(p.212 - 17 years is the age limit for engaging in homosexual relations... "Patzer thus regards the story as highly derogatory")

and

"The ambiguity and lack of reliability serves as the modern basis of criticism—that it is nearly impossible to know the real Socrates." - this sentence is an error - it is concerned with the Socratic problem not criticism of Socrates,"ambiguity and lack of reliability" are not a legitimate criticism of Socrates.

Whalestate (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I agree W. Perhaps the section should be called "Evaluation". Myrvin (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Typo
The third paragraph of the "Socratic Question" section contains a capital "I" rather than the word "in". Unable to fix due to lock. Jguziel (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no Socratic Question section. The word 'question' isn't in the article. Myrvin (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of dashes
Please use dashes correctly: "470/469–399 BC" (no space); thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.135.133 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Did Socrates commit suicide?
According to this RS: So it seems that the majority of scholars think that this was not a suicide. It is therefore contrary to academic consensus to add suicide categories to the article. Dr.  K.  03:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also these RS make similar points
 * Quote: "Plato insists that Socrates' death was not suicide: his hero resists killing himself on his own terms in prison and ..."


 * Quote: "Taking the poison was not suicide. (The "Hemlock Society", which advocates suicide, misuses the name of Socrates' famous poison.) It was the penalty imposed on him, not his will and choice. In fact, just a few minutes earlier he had tried to ..."


 * Quote: "To this day philosophers debate whether Socrates' death can be considered a suicide.18 The death of Socrates became a productive paradigm in Western culture, a model that influenced the interpretation of one's own or another person's..."


 * Quote: "A somewhat more promising argument against Socrates' death as a suicide is that he acted under compulsion.3 Even though he was not physically coerced, at least not directly, he was, after all, sentenced to death."

Dr.  K.  03:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Holland (1969) believes that Socrates did not suicide because he was doing what had been decided upon by others."

Contradictory sentence
From the "Socratic problem" section: "As a result, all first-hand information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources." If all information is from secondary sources, then by definition none of it is "first-hand". Could some logged-in person please excise "first-hand" from that sentence? 192.31.106.34 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Typo
Needs period after "Xenophon composed the information after Socrates' death." Thank you.
 * ✅ Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Socrates was expert on "pimping"
I think the word we are looking for is "primping." In the "criticism" section...
 * ✅. Thanks. Dr.   K.  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socrates. 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/20150327182338/http://www.philosophy.msu.edu/people/faculty/debra-nails/ to http://www.philosophy.msu.edu/people/faculty/debra-nails/

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) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Marginal view
The following text has been added:
 * In Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths, Robin Waterfield suggests that Socrates was a voluntary scapegoat; his death was the purifying remedy for Athens' misfortunes. In this view, the token of appreciation for Asclepius (the Greek god for curing illness) would represent a cure for Athens' ailments.

This is an extremely marginal view and should be, if included at all, indicated as such. Cl ea n Co py talk 03:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

birthyear - incorrect copy from source to article
reference shows "...was born at Athens, not earlier than 471..." article showed 470/469 @ version 04:13, 18 November 2017 : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socrates&oldid=810895560

23h112e (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If the year is around 468-471, 470 is the rounded version and should be kept, with a note that it is imprecise. Cl ea n Co py talk 03:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

moved content via edit made 18:41, 20 November 2017
In the case of scholars alive closer to the current day, including Eric Havelock and Walter Ong, He has been depicted as a champion of oral modes of communication, standing against the haphazard diffusion of writing source: Ong, pp. 78–79

23h112e (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018
Can we get an "é" instead of "e" on protege? 86.136.186.0 (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  12:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Today, such a voice would be classified under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a command hallucination."
Apologies if I'm not using the system correctly but this is definitely wrong. Maybe one author has claimed this. Were they a psychiatrist? DSM codifies psychiatric disorders not symptoms, although it does describe symptoms. And there's no way we can retrospectively diagnose Socrates from the extant fragments anyway. He heard a voice or sign. So do lots of normal people. That's definitely not sufficient to diagnose a disorder consisting of hallucinatory psychosis. It's an absurd leap to make, in all honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HypnoSynthesis (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been added here. Dekimasu よ! 07:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018
Add "Plato and Xenophon in particular." under influences. Virtually everything that is known about Socrates comes from these two sources. Both were fanatically devoted to Socrates and it would be useful to readers of the article (especially people just skimming). SiroCallimaco (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done: there is much to be said about how teachers are influenced by their students; however, technically, the "Influences" section is reserved for those teachers/philosophers from whom Socrates has learned, has been influenced by. Plato et al. would fall under the "Influenced" section, and they are presently grouped together with "Virtually all subsequent Western philosophy". Thank you for your suggestion!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  01:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I meant influenced! Pardon the typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiroCallimaco (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and implemented your request. Thank you very much for your input. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018
In Early Life, add these sentences: "According to Diogenes Laertius (II.16-23), Socrates was a pupil of the physicist Archelaus, who had been a pupil of Anaxagoras, and Archelaus took him in his youth to visit Samos." Stuartlyonscbe (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Diogenes Laërtius is a notoriously unreliable primary source, and his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers includes large amounts of speculative and apocryphal information presented as biographical that modern scholars do not accept as historically accurate. This is probably less Diogenes's own fault and more a result of the fact that he lived over six hundred years after most of the people he was writing about and, well, some of his sources are better than others. In order to include your suggestion in the article, we will need a reliable, secondary source written by a modern scholar that analyzes this statement from Diogenes, preferably one that draws a conclusion regarding whether or not the statement is accurate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a clean version of this article
So, User:23h112e has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Whalestate, blocked indefinitely in December 2015. It is clear to me that User:Drift chambers, blocked indefinitely in March 2012, is also the same editor. Per the blocking policy, this indicates that edits by Whalestate/23h112e can be reverted, and the editor has shown difficulties expressing himself in language that is easily understood. Is the current version of the article an improvement, or would it be worthwhile to try for a clean version of this article? Prior to the entrance of User:Whalestate, that would be something like this version. Or, somewhere around here marks the entrance of User:23h112e. Which is better, one of the older versions or the current one? Dekimasu よ! 07:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I may attempt a reversion based upon my own judgment if no one has any feedback. Dekimasu よ! 18:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I cleaned-up some of User:Whalestate's articles quite recently - he/she created a bunch of articles on Seneca's philosophical works back in December 2015. I can see some of the same problems here: convoluted English and a tendency to massively over-reference even minor details (like dates when other philosophers lived). In the end I was able to save those articles by rewriting lines, rearranging content, and a heavy cutting of the references to ones strictly relevant. I would suggest a similar approach here: check what this user added, keep/reword anything useful, cut the extraneous references. Pasicles (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The version before any of the User:Whalestate interventions in early 2015 I think provides a better starting point for cleaning up this article. Everyone happy to revert to that or do you think there are things worth keeping in this version? KingBrooke (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018
In the section Socratic problem, Plato is misspelled as Platoo. Jdasto (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. corrected now. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2019
ArgustheMan (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Feb%2FMarcello_Bacciarelli_-_Alcibiades_Being_Taught_by_Socrates%252C_1776-77_crop.jpg%2F220px-Marcello_Bacciarelli_-_Alcibiades_Being_Taught_by_Socrates%252C_1776-77_crop.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikiquote.org%2Fwiki%2FSocrates&docid=d8yzH_DhTAV5NM&tbnid=x-SSV5lUhn1LmM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiWs5PGvuzfAhVDeXAKHShNCB8QMwhzKAswCw..i&w=220&h=195&bih=658&biw=1280&q=socrates&ved=0ahUKEwiWs5PGvuzfAhVDeXAKHShNCB8QMwhzKAswCw&iact=mrc&uact=8
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing of cause of death
I am curious if anyone would mind some changes in the "Death" section of the infobox and in the article. It's a problem of balancing brevity, accuracy & completeness. I've added my changes. Your comments welcome. Lexein (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Source for the line of verse by Socrates
In the fourth paragraph of "The Socratic Problem" it states, "...he made no writings (only a line of his verse survives),[24]...". The source (numbered 24) does not provide the verse, or even mention it. I believe it only reiterates that he wrote nothing. ThomasMCarter (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the statement that there is a surviving verse of poetry written by Socrates. I seem to recall having read somewhere that there is indeed a bit of poetry that has survived that is attributed to Socrates, but that it is generally agreed that the attribution is spurious and that Socrates did not actually write it. In any case, until someone can provide a citation to a reliable source, it should not be in the article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019
In the Socratic Problem section: "A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan. For instance, those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament." This isn't an instance of a source mentioning Socrates, since it isn't an instance of anything -- it's a lacuna.

Maybe the second sentence could read: "For instance, the accounts of the trial of Socrates may be presumed to contain favorable depictions, even to the point of deviating from the facts, since the authors of these accounts have an interest in preserving Socrates' image."

In the Biography section, Sources subsection: "The sources are thought to have in part or wholly made use" contains a split infinitive. What's being split up is 'to have made use'. Could be revised to something like: "The sources are thought to have made use wholly or in part". DonaldLflr (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

pun
Σωκράτης vs προσωποκράτης (personocrat; personocentrist; one who places personhood and at least one person to the center of causality or attention)

But it's just a pun, because Socrates never wrote anything.

Plato's Socrates serves the needs of Plato and certainly isn't a stable character (Plato wasn't intelligent enough to think about maintaining a stable character for his hero. People simply like Plato due to his fame and avoid methodical analysis.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4119:CD00:B1D1:C023:2F36:4B51 (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2020
Updated: Hi sir @Pjarkur, thank you very much for your anwser, I appreciate your time and contribution. Following the general rules, even if the article is a notable or trustable source, this would still be an opinion to tell that he was dirty no? I just try to better understand how to rule this. Thank you very much for your answer, best Regards. Hi there, I think we need to remove the part where we call Socrates a Dirty man.. Citing the exact words that we can read on Socrates Wiki page: Two factors emerge from all sources pertaining to the character of Socrates: that he was ugly (at least as an older man) This is clearly a supposition of a personal opinion, unless we have a written article with Socrates Signature, this is a should be removed phrase composition that lead to nothing but diminishing the quality of the actual literature. SirlupinwatsonIII (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what the cited sources say, they say that all sources mention that he was brilliant and ugly. This isn't really a personal opinion since high-quality sources highlight this. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Dubious (or citation needed)
"Perhaps the most interesting facet of this is Socrates's reliance on what the Greeks called his "daimōnic sign", an averting (ἀποτρεπτικός apotreptikos) inner voice Socrates heard only when he was about to make a mistake. It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics. In the Phaedrus, we are told Socrates considered this to be a form of "divine madness", the sort of insanity that is a gift from the gods and gives us poetry, mysticism, love, and even philosophy itself. Alternately, the sign is often taken to be what we would call "intuition"; however, Socrates's characterization of the phenomenon as daimōnic may suggest that its origin is divine, mysterious, and independent of his own thoughts."

I can't edit the article, but can we get a citation for this? I'm thinking it might be dubious. I haven't studied the Phaedrus, but (just scanning it) I don't see that part in there. I do see the part where Socrates mentions his daemon (section 242), and I see the part where he mentions the four kinds of madness (section 265), but I don't see him drawing any sort of connection between the two. A section number would be helpful, assuming this conection is actually there and I'm just missing it.

Also, "philosophy" is not listed among the four kinds of divine madness. The four kinds are prophecy, mysticism, poetry, and love ("erotic"). Prophecy, not philosophy. 73.133.224.40 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Claim that a single verse authored by Socrates is extant
A year or so ago I brought up that the source does not provide the verse, and it was removed. The claim has been reinserted and the discussion removed. Why? This is the only place I have seen this claim made. I would be interested to see the verse as well as its vetting. ThomasMCarter (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the dubious claim. There are some popular sources that claim Socrates wrote the line "Those who honor the gods best in dancing are also best at fighting", but this isn't supported by any academic sources (AFAICT). If anyone know differently, feel free to restore it with a citation. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (The previous bit of discussion in July 2019 was archived, and may be seen here.) Just plain Bill (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

From Socratic Irony and Aristotle's "Eiron": Some Puzzles

 * By: P. W. Gooch, Scarborough College (University of Toronto)
 * Published: Phoenix, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Summer, 1987), pp. 95-104.
 * Obtained from JSTOR Sunday March 2nd, 2008

This Article adresses my some of my comments. (See blockquote below. The text is from a footnote.)

At the end of the last century J. A. Stewart wrote, "Aristotle is the first to make Socrates the type of refined Irony" (Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle [Oxford 18921 1.359). Next Burnet: "This passage seems to be the origin of the current phrase 'Socratic irony,' a thing which is almost as mythical as 'tragic irony'" (The Ethics ofAristotle [London 19001 196). Then T. Marshall: "Irony, in the sense in which it is now commonly taken, as meaning an affectation of ignorance, is here attributed to Sokrates . . . . The authority of Aristotle has had a good deal to do with fixing the present meaning of the word" (Aristotle's Theory of Conduct [London 19091 264). And G. G. Sedgewick: "our ideas of Socratic irony spring ultimately from Aristotle's definition of eironeia as a pretence which takes the form of self-depression . . . .[Aristotle] fixed the general sense of Socratic irony for all time" (OfIrony, Especzally in Drama2 [Toronto 19481 11-12). (Works mentioned in this note will be cited by author's name, as will R. A. Gauthier and J. Y. Jolif, ~ ' f ' t h i ~2u eNicomaque [Louvain 19591 and T. Irwin, tr., Nicomachean Ethlcs [Indianapolis 19851). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixer1234 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
The possessive form of the noun 'Socrates' is Socrates's, not Socrates'. Could this please be changed? Thomasrlind (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See . ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Spelling error - Intelegence
In the second line of the second paragraph of Source and the Socratic problem the word intelligence is spelt wrong "intelegence". I can't edit yet and unless I'm missing something I thought it ought to be fixed, cheers to anyone who can. Jardsmore (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks. You can't yet edit since only autoconfirmed users can edit this article. Cinadon36 11:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021
I only read the biography and trial section, but this is the worst article I have seen in Wikipedia! Obviously not a native English speaker, but even worse with repeated words, subject and verb mismatch, sentence fragments. ENTIRE piece needs a complete rewrite for spelling, punctuation and grammar. Was edited 23 hours ago, maybe an older version survives? The person who edited this should be prohibited from future edits. 104.184.75.161 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Disagree with 104.184.75.161 (talk), agree with ScottishFinnishRadish (talk). Show the material that concerns you, and mark the section containing the relevant material, then a rework will be put in place and the article will likely be semi-protected, but only if you show the evidence for your concerns. Please, I stress you mark the section of the material you found. I do not want to read the whole article to find some text which could not exist. ReaIdiot (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Disagree with ScottishFinnishRadish and ReaIdiot, agree with 104.184.75.161 (talk) - Read the article. There are so many instances of bad grammar, misspellings, etc., that you cannot miss them. We do not want to cut and paste the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In one paragraph,

Sources and the Socratic problem Statue of Socrates in front of the modern-day Academy of Athens

Socrates didn't write down any of his teaching and what we know of him comes from the accounts of others- mainly his pupils the philosopher Plato and the historian Xenophon, his contemporary comedian Aristophanes, and lastly Aristotle, who was born after Socrates’s death. The often contradictory stories of the ancient sources make it incredible difficult to reliably reconstruct Socrates’s thoughts in the proper context- named the Socratic problem.[14]

1.

mainly his pupils the philosopher Plato

should be

mainly his pupils, the philosopher Plato

2.

Xenophon, his contemporary comedian Aristophanes,

should be

Xenophon, comedian Aristophanes (Socrates's contemporary),

3.

make it incredible difficult

should be

make it incredibly difficult

1. Plato initially tried accurately represent the historical Socrates

should be

Plato initially tried to accurately represent the historical Socrates

2.

naïve representation of Socrates- the latter was a soldier and was unable to articulate Socratic ideas.

uhm, this says that Socrates (the "later") was a soldier and unable to articulate Socratic ideas ...

3.

Aristotle to describe its contemporary newly formed literature genre on Socrates.[30]

huh? not even sure what is being said

4.

Aristotle was not a contemporary of Socrates; he studied next to Plato

No. Aristotle studied UNDER Plato, not with him

5.

Athenian comedians, including Aristophanes, a contemporary of Socrates,

It has already been asserted that Aristopanes and Socrates were contemporaries

6.

Aristophanes limns a caricature of Socrates

"limns" is an archaic word not much in use.

7.

and Phaedo, all

should be

and Phaedo; all

8.

The problem with discerning Socrates' philosophical views

Is it Socrates' or Socrates's? There is inconsistent usage (it is the later)

9.

refers to Socrates in words which make it patent that the doctrine

too wordy. use this:

state that the doctrine

10.

His education was according to laws and custums of

customs, not custums

I am not even a quarter of the way through the article.

These are merely the simple grammatical errors. Composition and construction errors are just as gross.

The article needs a major rewrite, not an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

11.

bow to public pressure, Socrates stand alone

should be

bow to public pressure, Socrates STOOD alone

12.

Socrates attachment to the law, is the arrest of Leon. As Plato describes in his Apology Socrates and four

misplaced comma. should be

Socrates attachment to the law is the arrest of Leon. As Plato describes in his Apology, Socrates and four

13.

because he did not want to be involved in what he considered a crime and despite the risk of subsequent retribution from the tyrants.[64]

should be

because he did not want to be involved in what he considered a crime, despite the risk of subsequent retribution from the tyrants.[64]

14.

attracting the interest of Athenian crowd and especially youth like a magnet

should be

attracting the interest of Athenian crowds, and especially the youth, like a magnet

15.

having flat turned-up nose, bulky eyes and a belly—his friends used to joke with his appearance

should be

having a flat turned-up nose, bulky eyes and a belly—his friends used to joke about his appearance

16.

also he did consumed much wine

should be

also he consumed much wine

17.

common and accepted in ancient Greece

should be

common and accepted practice in ancient Greece

18.

Politically, he was sitting on the fence in terms of the rivalry between the democrats and the oligarchs in the ancient Athens- he criticizes sharply both while they were on power.

five edits, one sentence

Politically, he sat on the fence in terms of the rivalry between the democrats and the oligarchs in ancient Athens- he criticized both sharply while they were in power.

19.

According to the then custom, he proposed a penalty (in his case Socrates offered some money)

two edits, one sentence

According to custom, he proposed a penalty (in his case, Socrates offered some money)

20.

In 404 BCE, Athenians were crashed by Spartans

should be

In 404 BCE, Athenians were crushed by Spartans

21.

some Athenians organized to overtop the tyrants

should be

some Athenians organized to overthrow the tyrants

22.

But as Spartans left again, democrates seized

democrats, not crates

23.

In such a political tensed climate

tense, not tensed

24.

climate, in 399 Socrates

should be

climate, in 399, Socrates

25.

Meletus, who asked for death penalty

should be

Meletus, who asked for the death penalty

Ok. I quit. I am not even a third of the way through the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.161.43 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of references sections
I'm confused as to why this article appears to have duplicate sections for sources, one called "References" and the other "Sources". If both contain sources that are used in the article, should they not be merged? Otherwise I think that one of them should be renamed "Further reading" or similar. I noticed this because a recent edit added Vlastos (1991) to the second section, creating an sfn "multiple-target" error since it's already present in the first section. Additionally the first section needs sorting by author, but that can happen once the duplication has been resolved. Ideas? Wham2001 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . It is because this article is going a reconstruction. I have inserted text using shortened footnote template, and this creates the need of sources. The reason I am using sfn, is because, same books might be used several times, citing different pages. It is much more handy. I hope in a month or so, I will finish my work with Socrates and nominate the article for GA. That is my plan. But most importantly, to try to explain the major thoughts of Socrates and their interpretations- not merely mentioning some well known axioms. Anyway I will fix the ref section problem by then.. Cinadon36 12:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , aha – I see. Looking forwards to reading the final product!  I am also very much in favor of sfn for articles that are based significantly on books; most of my editing at the moment is tidying up the use of sfn and the associated source lists. Thanks for the explanation, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

kudos to you both for the work on this. TY. — Ched (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cinadon36 is doing all the work: I'm just making a nuisance of myself Wham2001 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Moments ago I completed a quick copy-edit of the section Trial of Socrates, however, now that I've read this discussion, I realize that it may conflict with work that is already in progress by other editors. Apologies if this creates an edit conflict.20:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks everybody for your comments, and thanks for your c/e-ing the article. Pls jump in at any time. :) Cinadon36 04:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

When to remove template
I'd suggest removing the {expansion} template if it hasn't been edited in five days, not three days, since after a three day hiatus, I checked, and the reconstruction was active, so don't be quick to remove it. ReaIdiot (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021
In "Philosophy" chapter in "Socratic eudaimonism and intellectualism" entry the 5th and 6th sentences are almost identical to the 12th and 13th. Please remove the 5th and 6th to avoid unnecessary information repetition. For reference:

5th, 6th: Socrates total rejection of acting against your impulses or beliefs (named akrasia ) has puzzled scholars. Most scholars believe that Socrates leaves no space for irrational desires, even though some claim that Socrates acknowledge the existence of irrational motivations but do not have a primary role when someone is judging what action would he take.

12th, 13th: Socrates total rejection of akrasia (acting because of your irrational passions contrary to your knowledge or beliefs) has puzzled scholars. Most scholars believe that Socrates leaves no space for irrational desires, even though some claim that Socrates acknowledge the existence of irrational motivations but do not have a primary role when someone is judging what action would he take.

The 12th and 13th sentences are more suitable since they provide the explanation of term "akrasia". Furthermore sentences should not be moved in the 5th and 6th place because they fit the context provided in 11th sentence better. Szary0K (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC) References


 * Well spotted, done. Cinadon36 09:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammar issues throughout
Hi there! Thanks for everyone’s hard work on the page. I’ve noticed a number of grammatical errors, particularly in the Philosophy section. Taking this sentence as an example, issues capitalised.

Socrates asks his interlocutor for a definition of the subject, then Socrates will (CHANGE OF TENSE?) ask more questions where the answers of the interlocutor will be in odds (AT ODDS) with his first definition, with the conclusion (THAT) the opinion of the expert is wrong.

Happy to help with these issues and made an account specifically to do so - will be back in time once account is established. MyriadKittens (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

, thanks for your willingness to assist in grammar and spelling. I am not a native English speaker, so many of my edits need copy/editing. Glad to help in case you have any questions. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Marriages
I wasn't able to verify the source as written. Vasiliou doesn't appear to address this topic and Ober doesn't mention any doubt as to the second marriage or that Socrates was in his fifties, so that would need additional sourcing. I was looking to link to Myrto somewhere within the article, moving the link from the See also section, but she isn't mentioned by name in Ober. czar 16:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , firstly I 'd like to thank you for your c/e. At Ober 2010 "One marriage (the order is disputed by the ancient sources) was to a woman with the aristocratic name Xanthippe. The other marriage, according to tradition, was without dowry, to a daughter of the distinguished Athenian statesman Aristides (nicknamed “the Just”)." There are multiple sources citing this, but I do not feel like verifying too much. As I understand, the claim that Socrates was married to Myrto, can be found in Aristotle dialogue. (See Moore, at Brill's companion to reception of Socrates) I do not want to dig further, because article should focus to Socrates philosophy, not gossip. Many RS do not even mention Myrto.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it suffice to cover it briefly then, proportionate to the sources? We have an article on Myrto, whose notability is on the basis of association with Socrates, so at least a brief in-text mention would seem warranted in the section on Socrates's personal life. And I know Ober didn't mention her by name, per your quote, but others do. czar  19:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if Myrto is notable, tbh. I feel we over-mentioning Myrto in this article. She is mentioned on a caption as well. Cambridge and Bloomsburry companion to Socrates do not even mention her. She is mentioned in books/chaptes when there is discussion on the reception of Socrates during Renaissance. So, adding more info on her, would seem undue weight.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 19:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The question of whether Socrates had a second wife has received at least two articles (added to Myrto bibliography), so if those contents do not fit within the main article (and I would suspect they don't), it makes sense to keep an independent article on the topic, no matter what it's titled. For this article's purposes, perhaps the caption is enough. I closed out of my windows now but I believe it was Guthrie who said that the reports of his second marriage were likely erroneous. If that is the case, we're better off saying so instead of that he had "one or two" marriages. czar  21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Nothing written by him has survived"
This content of this article has changed a lot during copy editing...

I thought Socrates didn't write? czar 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * do you have access to Guthrie? Page 6, note1, says he hasn't writen anything philosophical. He wrote a hymn to Apollo and some other lyrics. Guthrie cites Anton-Hermann Chroust's work on Socrates. Should we rephrase to make it more accurate? (but do not add trivia info on the other hand...)<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 06:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a copy en route. :) For the first sentence of the article, I think it would suffice to cut it back down to: "Socrates did not document his teachings." And if there is a spot later to go into his stance on writing and what he actual wrote (and what survives today), it would make more sense at that time. czar  06:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds reasonable. Will do. Did <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Copy edit as requested
I've just had a trial edit through the subsection 'Socratic philosophy of politics', enjoyed copy editing it and have agreed to pick the task up on the Guild of Copy Editors request page. But I see that the GA review has already started. Should the listing of this article be removed from the GOCE Requests page? Richard asr (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No, pls procede! I see no problem arising. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 15:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cinadon36, I'm happy to carry on.


 * At the beginning of the third paragraph of subsection Legacy/Modern times, was Kierkegaard's 'dissertation on Socrates' his doctoral dissertation? As it is worded, it leaves the reader wondering. Richard asr (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also the final sentence of the final paragraph in Legacy/Modern times: '...which is the hallmark of his philosophy...' Whose philosophy, Socrates' or Popper's?


 * thanks for your amazing c/editing! It was the master thesis of Kierkegaard. "Kierkegaard’s master’s thesis, On the Concept of Irony with Constant Reference to Socrates, heralds a freedom-loving Socrates who is prone to negate conventional values. Socrates’ reputation...." (Ahbel-Rappe, 2009). As for the hallmark, Open Society is the hallmark of Popper's philosophy. Thanks! I will let you make the clarifications needed! Many thanks once more! <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cinadon36. I'm sure I'll have more questions later, and thanks for clear answers. Really enjoying the article, by the way. Richard asr (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Cinadon36, I've added a little to the opening paragraph of the section Sources and the Socratic problem, to make later sentences tied in with an earlier statement that 'The works of Plato, Xenophon, and other authors...' but what I have written really needs a reference. My own reference to the statement would be, Cooper, John M, and Hutchinson, D. S. 1997. Plato: Complete Works, edited with Introduction and Notes. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge. Shall I introduce this reference or would you prefer to use one of the existing ones? Richard asr (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Goodmorning Richard asr! (it s morning here) Pls add your citation, don't forget to add an authorlink to Cooper! I might add more citations later, even though I am not for citation overkill and undisputed text doesn't need more than one or two refs. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good morning Cinadon36. It's morning here too, in the UK. Do you wish this article to use British English? I only ask because the use of en rules seems to be favoured over em rules for parenthetical dashes, but this use seems a little erratic. Particularly in the subsection Socratic philosophy of politics, where it seems to be all over the place. Richard asr (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no preference or opinion on this issue Richard asr. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Then I'll stick to Oxford style for this, since 'categorize' seems preferred over 'categorise', and use closed-up em rules. Our American friends will prefer this anyway! Richard asr (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Cenadon36: Final sentence of the subsection Sources and the Socratic problem/The Socratic Problem, it it referring to Xenophon's Apology, Plato's Apology, or both? Richard asr (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting! It refers to Plato's Apology. "...asserts that the Platonic Apology is a separate case since it is the text that has the best chance of corresponding to a “quasi-historical document” (1996, p. 88) and a “historical account” (1992, p. 257; see also 240 n. 9) of Socrates’ philosophy". <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cidadon36, I'll pop that in. Also, do you want to use BC–AD or BCE–CE for dates, the article uses both at the moment. Richard asr (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I prefer CE and BCE. It is used in Cambridge companion to Socrates, Bloomsbury companion to Socrates and Brill's companion to Socrates- also at Ahbel-Rappe 2009. It is more common in such kind of articles and in the literature (just a feeling, though, I haven't searched). I am not strong opinioned though, it doesnt change anything. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I reverted changes from BC to BCE, citing the WP:ERA guideline. "BC" is the original as I gather from earliest edits. Of course if there's a consensus to change it -- which I hope would be a separate thread on this talk page -- guidelines can be overridden. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Richard asr (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As long as they both denote the same year, it is not a big deal.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 14:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cinadon36, I have added a sentence of my own to the first paragraph of the section Religion, since the statement 'there was no organised religion...' in Ancient Greece is surely misleading. The plays of Aristophanes, for example, were written for the city Dionysia, the festivals of Dionysus, and many walked every year to Eleusis to attend the mysteries there, and of course to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Richard asr (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Goodmorning Richard, it really depends on the context given to organized religion. Since you are explaining what you mean by it, at your edit, it is fine. But in any case, I am adding a part of text from McPherran 2013, which is an expert on the specific field (relation of Socrates to religion)

"The distinct phenomena we designate by using terms such as ‘religion’ and ‘the sacred’ were, for Socrates and his contemporaries, seamlessly integrated into everyday life. 16 Moreover, no ancient text such as Homer’s Iliad had the status of a Bible or Koran, and there was no organized church, trained clergy or systematic set of doctrines enforced by them. What marked out a fifth century BCE Greek city or individual as pious ( hosios ; eusebēs ) – that is, as being in accord with the norms governing the relations of humans and gods – was therefore not primarily a matter of belief, but rather, correct observance of ancestral tradition. 17 The most central of these activities consisted in the timely performance of prayers and sacrifices. 18 Such sacrifices ranged from an individual’s libation of wine at the start of a meal to the great civic sacrifices of cattle held on the occasion of a religious festival, culminating in a communal banquet that renewed the ties of city-protecting deities with the citizenry through the mechanism of the shared meal (a portion of meat being set aside as a burned offering for the gods; see e.g. Od. 3.418–472). Besides such activities designed to ensure the favour of a divinity, however, we must also set those other rituals that aim to harm, not help, others; in particular, curses ..."


 * Your edit is in the spirit of the source. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

, I think that we are WP-voicing a controversial issue here. Some scholars, mostly mediaval arabs, did argued that Socrates believed in reincarnation, but modern scholars are not so definite about it. Maybe it would be wise to avoid a positive statement on Socrates belief. Also, I do not know why, most scholars use the word "transmigration" of soul, instead of reincarnation. I do now know why, they are synonyms as far as I can tell. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , that's fine, just edit anything of mine you think needs changing. I just thought the sentence as it stood seemed controversial, not to say wrong, without some clarification. Richard asr (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am watching your edits anyway, when you are done, I will start editing, so there wont be any edit conflicts. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent strategy! Richard asr (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I've been through it all now. Over to you. I can have a final read through it when you are happy with the text, just for a light, final run through, and take the article from the GOCE Requests page then. Does this sound sensible? Richard asr (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you rock! I think we are fine, we can take the article from GOCE request page. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * OK. Many thanks for a very enjoyable read. I have thoroughly enjoyed copy editing this. Richard asr (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard asr (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , we should be using Socrates's per MOS:POSS czar  01:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought so too at first, but Ancient Greek figures seem to be an exception. New Hart's Rules: Handbook of style for writers and editors says, 'It is traditional to use an apostrophe alone after classical names ending in s or es ' and cite this as an exception to the general rule. Wikipedia articles on Heracles, Sophocles, Euripides, Diogenes and Aristophanes all conform to this 'apostrophe alone' style, as I've checked. Conforming with these is perhaps preferable to going it alone. Richard asr (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A discussion last month on biblical/classical names reaffirmed the MoS position (to use the extra "s"). You can make your case there if you'd like but consensus appears to be quite solid on our internal position. Yes, this would mean that some of your named examples would need some love to become compliant. czar  01:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You are perfectly at liberty to make these changes if you like. My vote would be to use apostrophe alone, to conform with broader English usage for the classics and similar Wikipedia articles. Richard asr (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , I can not see any valid reason within the WP's philosophy, for preferring a centralized MoS instead of following the Style favored by Reliable Sources. Seems unwikipean in my eyes. Anyway, I will add an extra "s" if it is necessarily. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * done <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sophocles?
Hi, section 1.2 on sources has this sentence: "Unfortunately, this characterization of Sophocles in Clouds is the only one that survives today". There isn't much about Sophocles in the Socrates-article, and as a control, not much in the article on "Clouds" either. Is this a typo, or just my abysmal ignorance leading to confusion? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Typo. There is not Sophocles in the source either. Thanks mate. Will remove. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 12:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thx. For the sake of clarity: AFAICS the information which was supposed to be expressed was that "although Aristophanes had Socrates appear in several comedies, the Clouds is the only one that has been preserved" - just that someone's philosophical spellchecker had changed "Socrates" into "Sophocles". Now, although an error is corrected, information is lost, too. Idk if that information was important or not; if it is, perhaps it would have been enough to change "Sophocles" back into "Socrates" again? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was wrong of me to remove the sentence. Actually, I didn't like the word "unfortunately" (sounds unencyclopedic) and removed the whole sentence. Without "unfortunately" there was a problem in the flow of the paragraph. Anyway, I also had seconds thoughts on that. Thanks anyway! I re-inserted the sentence. Thanks for your remarks. :-) <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, and oh dear, I'm afraid I'm at it again. Looking at the problem sentence and the previous one: "Aristophanes's most important comedy with respect to Socrates is The Clouds, where Socrates is a central character of the play. Unfortunately, this characterization of Socrates in Clouds is the only one that survives today.[22]" - when reading closely it seems kinda obvious that "Clouds" should be important _because_ it is the one that survives; other reasons might be possible (extent, depth, wit ...), but are hard to check since ... well, other plays are not preserved. So I think the "Unfortunately" is unfortunate because of that preceding sentence. How about: "Aristophanes's only surviving comedy featuring Socrates is "The Clouds", where he is a central character." ...? And in the following sentence there is the wonderful word "sophistism", which, compared to "sophism" (7.6 million) and "sophistics" (19k) has to make do with a meagre 153 Google hits. Not that Google is any yardstick for esoteric conceptualizations; but unless one aims at the definition "characterized by the style of sophisms" (which I just made up), perhaps mere "sophisms" will do? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth clarifying that, although The Clouds is Aristophanes's only surviving comedy in which Socrates appears as a character on stage, it is not Aristophanes's only surviving comedy in which Socrates is mentioned, since Aristophanes also makes jokes about Socrates in The Birds and The Frogs, both of which have survived. We also know that the comic playwrights Ameipsias and Eupolis, who lived in the late fifth century BCE and were contemporaries of Socrates and Aristophanes, also wrote comedies in which they made fun of Socrates, because fragments of these comedies in which Socrates is mentioned have survived. The fragment from Ameipsias is preserved by Diogenes Laërtios in The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 2.5.27-28 —Katolophyromai (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, why not add them to the article? The 1.2 paragraph bears the title "Aristophanes and other sources", and AFAICS the aim of the whole section is to identify sources that can help identifying and characterizing the historical Socrates. You have the sources and can evaluate them, I assume. I came in just to ask about a typo, I'm no Socrates scholar, so I think I'll abstain from meddling any more. Cheers! T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Knew he knew nothing
This article represents ordinary misconceptions of Socrates's beliefs. Please reflect.

The historical Socrates apparently never claimed, as is commonly thought, that he doesn't know anything, this is wrong, the phrase "that Socrates doesn't know anything", the "I know that i know nothing" comes from Diogenes Laertius's Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, in which Diogenes Laertius attributes this famous and exaggerated phrase to Socrates.

This is an improper way to understand what Socrates meant. This is a hoax. There is no paradox. He never actually said this in any of Plato's dialogues.

What he claimed is that if he is wiser than all the greeks it is only because he knows when he doesn't know something, and this he says is only the start of wisdom.

When you know that you don't know something you do not in any instance suppose, in exaggeration, that you "don't know anything at all", you merely mean that there is "something" that you do not know. These two things are not the same at all.

The paradox appears only if and when you confuse the two. 109.245.225.56 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment but can you please be more specific? There is not a sentence in the article stating that it is certain that Socrates said something like that. Socratic disavowal of knowledge though is well established. The saying is not particularly important, in my opinion. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well my issue is with the sentence "Socrates is known for proclaiming his total ignorance" which i think is meant to refer to the beleif that he has said "That he knows that he knows nothing".

If that is true then this is a widespread, very common, but false exaggeration. The quoted sentence is in the second paragraph of the article. But it's not true that he did this.

It is really common to assume he did, but when you look at Platonic texts it's nowhwere in there it's just something that someone probably misattributed to him after he died.

What probably happened is that Diogenes exaggerated the statement for rhetorical effect but to widespread misattribution, as the enduring popularity of his texts will testify.

It should be highly unlikely under any fact that this is what Socrates actually meant, as the statement doesn't make any sense and can't really be true. The phrase must always be false as it would always provide it's own counterexample, Socrates, very probably, hasn't been inconsistent. The phrase has just very likely been misleading.

If you interpret Socrates like this you are very likely making a mistake of attribiting a third persons view as his own. This is the wrong way to interpret someone because you will never get to what the man is meaning to say. ~respose 10:31, January 23 2022(UTC)


 * In Plato's dialogues Socrates is a semi-fictional character. Plato is not the only source for information about Socrates. When Arcesilaus changed the doctrine of the Academy to skepticism, this caused a re-interpretation of Socrates as a skeptic. While none of these Academics knew Socrates personally, they had access to far more information about Socrates than we do. Teishin (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that they have just misunderstood Socrates. Plato seems to be the first source either way. It is possible that Diogenes picked this up from Arcesilaus. There were also many contradictory factions that have claimed tutelage from Socrates after his death, but only Plato knew him when he was alive.

These claims are way too strong. Also where are the sources? The whole intoduction, except how on how to spell Socrates itself, has no inline citations, at all. ~response 15:31, January 23 2022(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.225.58 (talk)


 * Sources can be found in the main body of the article. They are quite strong. There is no need for references at intro. See MOS:LEADCITE. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b>

What do you mean? The link doesn't mention anything about sneaking away intro citations. Do the main sources verify the assertions made in the introduction? Did i not challenge this article? 109.245.32.2 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * What is the basis for the claim that Plato is "the first source"? How can you say that "only Plato knew him when he was alive"? What about Xenophon, Aristophanes, and other sources from which we have fragments? What about the severe inconsistencies in Plato's account of Socrates? Teishin (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Socrates was Platos friend and teacher, and Arcesilaus probably only learned from those that Plato taught, so anything that Arcesilaus learned about Socrates is just what Plato taught about him. This is also probably the reason why Plato was Arcesilaus's primary source, as in the order, and is also in all likelyhood why Plato is still the source about what we know about Socratws right now.

Also what about the other unreliable accounts like Plato? What about Aristophanes, Xenophon or few others. What about the conflicting accounts we have found between them?

Is their testimony contrary to what i say? What about them do you think is relevant? 109.245.32.2 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Last name of Socrates?
Last name of Socrates was Scholasticus. 71.244.161.221 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about "a founder of Western Philosophy"
I think this is more of a general Wikipedia question so maybe someone can point me to a policy page. There is a "citation needed" tag next to the claim that Socrates is "credited as a founder of Western Philosophy". Isn't this tantamount to requiring a citation for "Shakespeare wrote plays"? I mean, isn't Socrates' importance for philosophy pretty much axiomatic and globally known?

More simply, how would one find a source for such a basic claim?

Bulbubly (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . I hadnt noticed the cn tag...Anyways.... you are scratching an old WP debate, do we need citation for sky is blue? Both sides have strong arguments. Anyways...I 'll try to find a suitable ref, it wont be difficult. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Still working on it.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Characterization of Arendt and Popper as continental
The article currently refers to "Continental philosophers Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss and Karl Popper". Are Arendt and Popper usually considered part of the continental tradition? I'm not at all an expert, but I didn't think they were. Even if I'm wrong, perhaps this is a strange thing to emphasize? Wwhhllrr (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"They demonstrate the Socratic approach to areas of philosophy including rationalism and ethics. "
Rationalism, unlike Ethics, is not an "area" of academic philosophy. "Epistemology" may be the preferred term in this instance. Diomedes Agonistes (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Socrates believed that the ballot box was a stupid way to elect representatives
Socrates believed that the ballot box was a stupid way to elect representatives. Xenophon explains: "Socrates cause[d] his associates to despise the established laws when he dwelt on the folly of appointing state officers by ballot: a principle which, he said, no one would care to apply in selecting a pilot or a flute-player or in any similar case, where a mistake would be far less disastrous than in matters political. Words like these, according to the accuser, tended to incite the young to contemn the established constitution, rendering them violent and headstrong." 121060 Raja.m82 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You have confused ballot with ballot box William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the purpose of the OP was in posting the above here. If there was a ballot, then there may have been a ballot box also. Or not. Whatever the case, it is clear from the passage (wherever it is take from) that Socrates was referring to the ballot itself, whether that was a box for that or not. So, does that mean that Socrates was implying that democracy is not a good system? Just curious. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt he was opposed to democracy seeing how he fought to defend it and died protecting it 91.140.15.141 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In any case, that link doesnt link to a RS, so...<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Lede
The opening sentence - the reference is National Geographic. Surely for a philosopher of this stature and notability a number of WP:SECONDARY sources could be provided? It is not as if he is little-known. 182.239.146.18 (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree..there should be at least one other source to support for the first sentence of the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, if the claims in the lead are justified elsewhere in the article with secondary sources, it's not necessary to also cite them in the lead. Do you dispute the claim that Socrates was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy and among the first moral philosophers of the ethical tradition of thought, or think that others are likely to challenge it? It certainly seems accurate enough to me. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference. . No citation is needed at the lead. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)