Talk:Socrates/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

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, [1] 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)

Archeleus

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:

It is rarely, if at all, thought that Socrates committed suicide

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

• <ref name="Wilson2007">{{cite book|author=Emily R. Wilson|title=The Death of Socrates|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=aZPF1y5gPVoC&pg=PA212|year=2007|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-02683-4|page=212}}</ref> Quote: "Plato insists that Socrates' death was not suicide: his hero resists killing himself on his own terms in prison and ..."

• <ref name="Kreeft2002">{{cite book|author=Peter Kreeft|title=Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy Via Plato's Apology ; Forty Things Philosophy is According to History's First and Wisest Philosopher|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=kFn5J9j8PLkC&pg=PA146|year=2002|publisher=Ignatius Press|isbn=978-0-89870-925-4|page=146}}</ref> 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 ..."

• <ref name="Paperno1997">{{cite book|author=Irina Paperno|title=Suicide as a Cultural Institution in Dostoevsky's Russia|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=m3pqf8f-6bMC&pg=PA7|year=1997|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=0-8014-8425-1|page=7}}</ref> 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..."

• <ref name="HonkasaloTuominen2014">{{cite book|author1=Marja-Liisa Honkasalo|author2=Miira Tuominen|title=Culture, Suicide, and the Human Condition|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=0pbiAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA78|date=30 March 2014|publisher=Berghahn Books|isbn=978-1-78238-235-5|page=78}}</ref> 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."

• <ref name="Fairbairn2003">{{cite book|author=Gavin J Fairbairn|title=Contemplating Suicide: The Language and Ethics of Self-Harm|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=IBKIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA144|date=2 September 2003|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-84508-8|page=144}}</ref> Quote: "Holland (1969) believes that Socrates did not suicide because he was doing what had been decided upon by others."

Dr. K. 03:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

 Done Thanks. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Typo

Needs period after "Xenophon composed the information after Socrates' death." Thank you.

 Done Thanks. Paul August ☎ 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...

 Done. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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. Clean Copy^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. Clean Copy^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)

 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)

@SiroCallimaco: 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)

@Stuartlyonscbe: 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

 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)

@ThomasMCarter: 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)

 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)

 Not done: See [2]. 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)

 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 @Wham2001:. 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)

Cinadon36, 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 @Waldhorn: 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)

@MyriadKittens:, 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. Cinadon36 06:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Socrates/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ardenter (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Beginning

Hello! I'm going to review this over the coming days.

The box

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stability

The content has been moderately changed recently for this review, but there are no edit wars or disputes. It seems good. Ardenter (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Images

The images for the majority of the article are illustrative. However, there is a lack of images in the philosophy section. I'm going to review 6b once sufficient images are added. Ardenter (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Scratch that. After reviewing the rest of this article, I'm going to mark 6b negatively for now and check 6a. Ardenter (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

All images appear legitimate. Ardenter (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

5 images have been added. [3], [4],[5], [6], [7]. Cinadon36 08:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style and neutral point of view at present

There appear to be quite a few Manual of Style issues. The section "Virtue and Knowledge" should be "Virtue and knowledge". A lot have words to watch. "But it contradicts other statements of Socrates, when he claims he has knowledge" would adhere as "In other statements by Socrates, he claims he has knowledge." "It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics, Socrates claimed at his trial" would adhere as "Socrates claimed at his trial that this sign prevented Socrates from entering into politics." Those should serve as an example. It needs serious clean up regarding words to watch and needs to clearer define who is making points. The article needs a lot of revisions here. I'm going to fail these now. Ardenter (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ardenter:, may I kindly ask, why have you marked negatively on npov, so I could improve the article? No narrative is getting more or less attention, promoted or demoted- I was reflecting literature. Are you referring to "words to watch"? If so, can you point to few examples pls? Thanks! Cinadon36 08:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is mostly because of the words to watch policy. For example, "But it contradicts other statements of Socrates, when he claims he has knowledge". I'd just recommend doing a Ctrl+f search for "pointed out", "but", "however", and other words to watch and removing them. I think then the article would have NPOV then. Have a good day! Ardenter (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok @Ardenter: I will try to remove most words, even though I am not too sure that they necessarily introduce a POV perspective. Surely, they are used frequently in order to downgrade an opinion, esp. in controversial articles relating to history, religion or politics but I think this is not the case in this article. (oh! did I just introduce my POV?) I think the cases that introduce a pov, could be detected if the two sentences, are having a different citation. So, a user adds a referenced sentence, another user who wants to disqualify the first, adds a following sentence (referenced), starting with a "but" or "however". Anywayz....I will see what I can do and reply in detail. Cinadon36 05:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

All "however"s have been removed,[8] except one that was part of a quotation. It wasn't hard. Now, going for the "but"s. Cinadon36 06:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed many "but"s, [9] but not all. Some where within quotations, whereas others, they introduce an antithesis that is sourced. I do not consider them as inserting POV.Cinadon36 07:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed 2 out of three "despite"s [10]. The one left is not producing "implications that are not supported by the sources." (pre MOS:EDITORIAL). Neither the 2 left out I suppose, but they were introducing rather trivial info. Cinadon36 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Though, removed [11] Cinadon36 07:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Coverage

The article seems solid in its coverage. It covers each part of Socrates' life in appropriate depth. I'm going to say yes for 3. Ardenter (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I've done some plagiarism checks. Everything seems fine. Checking off.

References

All references are listed and appear reliable. Checking off.

Grammar

There needs a couple grammar revisions. "Irony of Socrates is so subtle and slightly humorous, that often leaves reader wondering if Socrates is making an intentional pun" would fit as "The irony of Socrates is so subtle and slightly humorous, that often leaves the reader wondering if Socrates is making an intentional pun." I think that each sentence should be checked for grammar by the nominator.

Conclusion

I'm going to go with wait for now. A lot of the problems here are, with effort, easily overcomable. Once you think it's ready, notify me and I'll check for the last problems. If you want to have a full list of the problematic sentences, also notify me. Have a good day!

Hi @Ardenter: Thanks for taking some time to review this article. I am not a native English speaker, and even in my own language I rely on others to help me on grammar and spelling. The article is pending a review from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, but since it seems it s delaying, I will ask from good co-Wikipedians @Ktrimi991 and Resnjari: if they could be kind enough to assist. Mates, can you help, pls? Cinadon36 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will check every sentence of the article tomorrow. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I just made a bunch of grammar edits, particularly in the "Biography" section. Hope that's helpful. Wolfdog (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

They certainly are helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Calthinus: can you too give some help? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I can give it a look. --Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Calthinus! If you need any clarifications, pls ask me! Cinadon36 16:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead section should be reviewed and updated for errors following the many additions made above in this review. For example, Socrates is stated to "start" the dialogues with the others. This is not the case in the Symposium, for example, where "Socrates is late to arrive because he became lost in thought on the way. When they are done eating, Eryximachus takes the suggestion made by Phaedrus, that they should all make a speech in praise of Eros, the god of love and desire. It will be a competition of speeches to be judged by Dionysus. It is anticipated that the speeches will ultimately be bested by Socrates, who speaks last." The lead section should be corrected and updated based on all the revisions made during the last month by various editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This should be a separate section, but nevertheless, here is my answer. Intro should reflect main body of the article. Main body of the article should reflect RS. Our interpretations after reading primary sources, or what other WP articles says, do not matter. I inserted a phrase in the main body that clarifies that Socrates initiates the discussion. Maybe the dialogues do not start with Socrates, but the philosophical essence of the dialogues, starts with Socrates asking what is F-ness? Benson 2011 says so, is enough for me. Cinadon36 18:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Per MOS:LEADLENGTH the lead should be three or four paragraphs (probably four) as the article is 55,052 characters [12]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, 3 paragraphs now. Cinadon36 20:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Marriages

He married once or twice; one of his marriages was with Xanthippe when Socrates was in his fifties; the other one might have been with the daughter of Aristides, an Athenian statesman.{{sfnm|1a1=Ober|1y=2010|1p=161|2a1=Vasiliou|2y=2013|2p=33}}

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)

@Czar:, 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.Cinadon36 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.Cinadon36 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...

Socrates did not document his teachings and nothing written by him has survived.

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

@Czar: 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...)Cinadon36 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 [13] Cinadon36 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. Cinadon36 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?

@Richard asr: 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! Cinadon36 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. Cinadon36 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. Cinadon36 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". Cinadon36 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. Cinadon36 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)

@Peter Gulutzan: As long as they both denote the same year, it is not a big deal.Cinadon36 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)

@Richard asr: 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. Cinadon36 07:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Richard asr:, I think that we are WP-voicing a controversial issue here[14]. 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. Cinadon36 07:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36:, 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. Cinadon36 08:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

@Cinadon36: 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 @Richard asr:, you rock! I think we are fine, we can take the article from GOCE request page. Cinadon36 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)

• @Richard asr, 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)

@Czar:, 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. Cinadon36 11:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

done Cinadon36 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. Cinadon36 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. :-) Cinadon36 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)

@84.208.86.134: 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Socrates/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AleatoryPonderings (talk · contribs) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Cinadon36: Thanks for your work on this vital article and your nomination. This will probably take me a while to review. I intend to go section by section, commenting as I go. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: thanks for taking this review! I am looking forward on working together! I have to mention that in real life, I am having exams in November the 3rd. I may not respond promptly until then. But pls go forward with your review! Cheers! Cinadon36 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Totally fine - we can both go slowly :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede

• I have never heard of "Western ethical" as a descriptor for a philosophical tradition. This is an arguable WP:EGG since the link is to virtue ethics. Is there a reason this term is used in the lede? It's not used anywhere else in the article.
  • Me neither. Changed [15].
• "Accused of corrupting the youth". My sense is that "corrupting the youth" is a term of art that has little or no applicability outside the trial of Socrates. It might come across oddly to readers. Is that your sense as well? If so, an explanatory footnote might be helpful. Not necessary, just a thought.
  • I think it sounds vague, but to be honest, I have heard of it several times. Both in high school (in modern Greece, lots of ancient Greece is within the curriculum) and in modern literature. I guess this is because, the Apology reads "That Socrates violates the law by corrupting of the youth, and not believing in the gods of the state, but other new divinities of his own. (24b–c)" I prefer keeping it as it is, tbh. Cinadon36 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Plato's dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity, from which Socrates has become renowned for his contributions to the fields of rationalism, ethics and epistemology. Is this sourced in the body? I'm having trouble seeing sources for "renown".
  • Hm, I do not really get the objection here. Socrates is renown for his work in ethics and rationalism. (Can be deduced from main body) Also contributed in others fields but maybe it is not that famous. So, I will remove "epistemology". Done [16]
    • My concern was mainly with "renown". I toned it down, which I hope is OK with you. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Obsoletely fine! Cinadon36 09:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is the last paragraph of the lede sourced in the body? It makes some rather sweeping claims.
  • I rephrased to match the source closer [17]. Source is SEP article on Socrates.

Sources and the Socratic problem

• What is the relevance of the citation of Kahn 1998 at xvii (note 3)? See doi:10.1017/CBO9780511585579.001. Kahn generally talks about Socratic dialogues there but doesn't specifically address the point made before the citation, if I read him correctly.
  • I do not know what I was thinking there. I must have been reading Kahn p1, but, it is already oversourced, so I removed it.[18]
• The citation to Cooper & Hutchinson at 1307–1308 doesn't seem to support the statement made there. (I've no doubt that they say this somewhere else in that massive edition, or that some other source could be found.) I have tagged with {{Failed verification}} accordingly and will do so if I find similar issues elsewhere.
  • Removed the whole sentence[19]. It was added by another user,[20] and tbh I didn't check it. While I am almost sure it stands true, I generally don't like sources dealing with other philosophers. Cooper and Hutchinson's work is on Plato. The bibliography on Socrates is already huge, we should not be looking at other sources. Now, I have to deal with the flow and the next bulletpoint.
• Likewise with the citation to Göring 2011 at 24–25 (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.002). Doesn't seem to support the claim that most dialogues were written after Socrates died.
  • Hmmm....here is how I did it wrong. It reads "It is also controversial as to whether the first Socratic dialogues had already been written while Socrates was still alive, or whether this type of dialogue was originally created only after the occurrence of his violent death in 399 BCE ." So, my conclusion was: An opinion says that all dialogues were wriiten after his death. The other opinion, I thought, it says that Most (all minus first dialogues) were after his death. So...I thought most is a proper word. Anyway, I will check it in other RS to see if it can be sourced elsewhere. So...lets see...pls wait.--->time passesOk, I reworded it.[21] I couldnt find a source claiming the exact thing I wrote.
    • I reworked it again - the source isn't super clear but I think it supports at least that much. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Xenophon was a well-educated, honest man, but lacked the intelligence of a trained philosopher. This is technically sourced but the phrase "intelligence of a trained philosopher" strikes me as bizarre—do we want to be saying in encyclopedic voice that philosophers are more intelligent than others?
  • Hmmmm....You have a point but I thought that if someone is trained in philosophy, he becomes more intelligent to comprehend philosophical arguments. I will reword it. Thinking of how...It might take a day or two since I am not a philosopher!  :-)--->So, I did this [22]. Is it an improvement? What do you think?
• I am noticing quite a lot of the statements in this section are close to what the sources say, but aren't entirely consistent with them. I am reworking and adding {{cn}} accordingly.
  • Right, I think I have fix them. [23]. Most of them were closed, but should have been closer. Maybe it is because of extensive C/E by several users (I asked for it).
• Who are the Burnet and Taylor of the "Burnet–Taylor thesis"?
  • I removed it. It seems trivia info. [24]
• Can you explain what enkrateia is (last paragraph of "Plato and Xenophon")? Dorion 2010 calls it "self-mastery" at p 4, but if this term isn't introduced before it's used with some background, it's hard to understand the significance. Ditto with elenchus, although that's briefly mentioned in the lede.
  • Is it better now? [25]
• The point about intertextuality, which is a broad and complex term, is a little confusing. Do you just mean that each text's narrative about Socrates could be sourced from another text, as opposed to what the historical Socrates did?
  • Maybe it needs rewording. I mean that one author was "inspired" by another author (and vise versa). The oracle story at the text of the source is characteristic. So, when we find similar stories, we cant conclude "oh! both authors are saying this, so it is true". Any suggestions on how to fix this? Intertextuallity is a difficult term, I try to avoid terms that the average reader needs to click to understand what s going on...Hm..Is this [26] better?
• Unfortunately, this characterization of Socrates in Clouds is the only one that survives today. This doesn't seem true if taken literally, since this section discusses Xenophon's and Plato's characterizations of Socrates. And Guthrie says at 40 that Socrates "was mentioned to our knowledge by four other writers of the Old Comedy, Callias, Ameipsias, Eupolis and Telecleides". What did you mean by this sentence? I'd also get rid of the "unfortunately", since it reads like editorialization.
  • Correct, removed[27] I meant Aristophanes depiction of Socrates was the most influential- by far.
• "Sophistism" - do you mean "sophism" or "sophistry"?
  • Sophism. Changed. [28]
• "by the age of 42" - Konstan at 85 says "When Clouds was produced, Socrates was almost forty-five years old" - did you mean 45?
  • Silly mistake. 45 [29] Cinadon36 10:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Current scholarship does not consider Aristophanes's work to be very helpful in reconstructing the historical Socrates, except perhaps with regard to some characteristics of his personality." I don't think the cited source supports this statement.
  • Hmmm..... It is my interpretation that it does support the statement because at subchapters "clearing the ground", Waterfield is making a quick presentation of current literature on each ancient author. So, while it can not be deduced from pages 7-8 alone, my overall impression is that, this is the argument made by author. Anyway, I will try to improve it....---> New version [30]. What do you think?
• "… basing his arguments on Aristotle's interpretation of Socratic logos" - "logos" is infamously a word with many interpretations - which one do you mean here?
  • I should have used italics. logos socraticos is used elsewhere in the text.[31] I reworded as well.
• I have reworked the statement regarding the dominance of Joel's views until the 20th century and added a {{cn}} tag, because I don't see in Dorion a clear statement that Joel was dominant and then supplanted by Gigon and Dupréel. Maybe I'm just missing something.
  • I cant see the cn tag. Did you fix it?
• "Later, it was suggested …" - I added a {{by whom}} tag here - the context suggests that the suggestion was by Vlastos, but it would be good to make this clear.
  • I cant see the cn tag. Did you fix it?
    • Idk what I was thinking with the two above. Marking as resolved. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Biography

• "Socrates fulfilled his military service during the Peloponnesian War and distinguished himself in three campaigns." This cites Guthrie 1972 at p 2 - unless your edition has a different pagination that the one I have access to, these pages are the preface which don't say anything about Socrates. Were you thinking of another source of page?
  • You are right, it is page 59. [32]
• "In 406 BC, Socrates participated as a member of the boule in the trial of six military commanders … " - is this episode widely reported? It seems a little WP:UNDUE to devote a whole paragraph to it if only Guthrie reports on it. I also added a {{cn}} to the sentence "In many people's eyes, the generals had thereby failed to uphold the most basic of duties." It didn't seem supported by Guthrie at 59–60. You might simply be able to delete that sentence—I'm not sure how much it adds.
  • I have seen it elsewhere (ie Cambridge companion p. 152) but still, it seems as UNDUE and it is difficult to tell the story in just one line. So I removed the paragraph. [33]
• "Another incident that illustrates Socrates's deep respect for the law …" This descriptor, and the paragraph in general, strike me as a bit hagiographic and it's not clear to me to what extent such a gloss is supported by the sources. It may be best to tone it down.
  • But one of the more prominent characteristics of Socrates, was his respect of the law, in an extent he killed himself. I don't know how to water it down. I ll sleep on it.--->I rephrased slightly. I couldn't came up to anything better.[34]
• "While he was physically attracted to both sexes, as was common and accepted in ancient Greece … " Unless I'm missing something, the sources only support sexual attraction to young men, and the point about bisexuality being common and accepted is not sourced.
  • [35] I have added some more pages to address this issue. It was pages 73-75, now it is 70-75
    • Where is it stated that he was sexually attracted to women? I don't see that in either the SEP article or Guthrie 70–75.
      • Oh, you are correct. Since he was married with children, I unconsciously concluded that he was bisexual. How naïve! Anyway, I was really puzzled on how to put it. I did this, but I am not sure if it is an improvement. [36]
        • Agree it's very hard to explain. I think the new version is good. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• " … as often happened with other older teachers and adolescent students". The first ref here cites "O'Connor p 211", but there is no page 211 in that chapter (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.003).
  • I removed it[37].
• "The character of Socrates as exhibited in …" - this seems better suited for the "Socratic problem" section, especially since the depiction of Socrates in the dialogues listed is not described further.
  • I see what you mean but I tried to construct each section based on chapters relevant to that section. So I am hesitant to use a source/chapter that is not on Socratic problem to the "Socratic problem section".
• "Socrates died in Athens in 399 BC after a trial … " - The statement that the trial lasted one day is not supported by the cited source.
  • I have added a couple of more pages. [38]

Trial of Socrates

• "Anytus was a powerful democratic politician who was despised by Socrates and his pupils Critias and Alcibiades." I don't see this in the source. Not sure if it's needed - you could probably take it out.
  • Most prob you are right. Removed [39]
• "The religious charges certainly had substance to them; Socrates had criticized the anthropomorphism of traditional Greek religion, describing it in several cases as a daimonion, an inner voice." This is also not in the source. In my understanding, the daimonion was something Socrates said spoke to him, not a feature of the gods (anthropomorphic or otherwise). And is ancient Greek religion anthropomorphic? Aren't the Greek gods humanoid?
  • Hmm...the source says "In Athens, religion was a matter of public participation under law, regulated by a calendar of religious festivals; and the city used revenues to maintain temples and shrines. Socrates’s irreverence, Meletus claimed, had resulted in the corruption of the city’s young men (Euthyphro 3c–d). Evidence for irreverence was of two types: Socrates did not believe in the gods of the Athenians (indeed, he had said on many occasions that the gods do not lie or do other wicked things, whereas the Olympian gods of the poets and the city were quarrelsome and vindictive); Socrates introduced new divinities (indeed, he insisted that his daimonion had spoken to him since childhood).". So, the criticism of anthropomorphism to greek Gods, does not include only their appearance, but their manners as well. [40]. For Socrates, Daimonion was the voice of a god. Mcpherran at Cambridge Companion says it was the voice of a god, prob. Apollo. (p125) Ahbel Rappe writes "as well as Socrates’ decades long reputation as a suspect intellectual, an eccentric who possibly heard voices or worshipped a private deity (his daimonion, or divine sign, Ap. 31d), and who, moreover, had a pernicious effect on the youth of Athens." Apparently the accusers saw Daimonion as something having. So I reshaped the sentence. [41]
    • Marking this as resolved; I reworked it to avoid saying in wikivoice that the charges did have substance; the SEP article couches this more in terms of what the allegations claimed, not on what was in fact the case. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• " … he deliberately requested that a paltry fine should be imposed on him". My sense from May and Guthrie is that the fine was not paltry - I thought it was "all he could afford" (May).
  • Yes, maybe I carried away by Guthrie, my impression was he said "since I am poor, I will pay a little amount", and then his friends raised the amount. But I was wrong. I also chacked it at Cambridge and Ahbel Rappe, p.16. The narrative is the same. [42]
    • Marked as resolved; I reworded again and hope I didn't change the meaning. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• "After a delay caused by Athenian religious ceremonies, Socrates spent his last day in prison, his friends visiting him and offering him an opportunity to escape, which he declined." I don't see this in Guthrie at 65–66. Guthrie just says "Socrates was kept in prison, where his friends were allowed to visit him, thus giving opportunity for conversations such as those related by Plato in the Crito and, on the last day of his life, the Phaedo" (p 65).
  • I inserted page 20 as well. It is a very known story. I added one more author (Ober) [43]
• "The case for it being a political persecution is usually challenged by the existence of an amnesty that was granted to Athenian citizens in 403 BC …" This sentence is hard to understand. What exactly is the relevance of this amnesty?
  • I explained the political persecution argument a little more. I hope this settles it[44]
• Paragraph beginning "Some ancient authors claimed that the prosecution was political." Why was this particular quotation chosen? Are the views of Aeschines of Sphettus particularly important for some reason? I also don't understand how the last sentence—"It was true that Socrates did not stand for democracy during the reign of Thirty, and that most of his pupils were against the democrats"—relates to the quotation. I don't think much would be lost if you deleted this paragraph, since the main idea we're dealing with at this point in the article is the two theories (religious v political) advanced by contemporary scholars.
  • You are right, removed. [45]
• "On the other hand, there were many skeptics and atheist philosophers …" Is the point of this to suggest that there must have been something "extra" in Socrates' case, if other philosophers weren't prosecuted? If so it might be good to make this explicit.
  • I rephrased. [46]

Philosophy

• " … or indeed if there even was a Socratic method". The paragraph that follows is mainly about the constructivist/non-constructivist debate, not the existence or absence of a Socratic method.
  • But that debate is relevant to Socratic method and Socrates, it is described in several books on Socrates. I think it is really important for the article to reflect the various narratives and debates that have yielded from Socratic thought. (As long as they are described in books about Socrates)
• "Making a priority of finding a definition for any aspect of knowledge is common in many of his dialogues". What is an "aspect of knowledge"? If courage, virtue, etc, are aspects of knowledge, this sentence is redundant to the one that precedes it. If an aspect of knowledge is something else, this sentence is unclear. Also, calling the dialogues "his" is a little odd—I'm used to thinking of the dialogues as Plato's, if anyone's.
  • Removed[47] since it was redundant. Other points takes as well.
• "Some scholars have argued that Socrates does not endorse this as a principle …" (emphasis added). Is "this" the priority of definition? Or something else? Why is the Laches an example of something other than the priority of definition?
  • This-->priority of definition. I removed Laches coz it is confusing. [48]
• "Philosopher Peter Geach, accepting that Socrates endorses the priority of definition, finds the technique fallacious …" Are you saying that, according to Geach, demonstrating that someone cannot define something does not mean that they don't know what they claim to know? I think that would be a clearer way of representing Geach's view: according to Geach, not being able to define the terms you use does not mean you don't know things expressed in those terms. The original paper (doi:10.5840/monist196650327) says Socrates's view is defined by two claims: "(A) that if you know you are correctly predicating a given term 'T' you must "know what it is to be T," in the sense of being able to give a general criterion for a thing's being T; (B) that it is no use to try and arrive at the meaning of 'T' by giving examples of things that are T." Geach then says:
  • Let us be clear that this is a fallacy, and nothing better. It has stimulated philosophical enquiry, but still it is a fallacy. We know heaps of things without being able to define the terms in which we express our knowledge. Formal definitions are only one way of elucidating terms; a set of examples may in a given case be more useful than a formal definition.
    • Yes, agree, rephrased [49]. But while I agree with PD being fallacious, I think it would be more wise not to comment on its fallaciousness or not.
• "The debate on the issue is still unresolved." What is "the issue"? I don't think this sentence is necessary—very few issues in ancient philosophy are fully resolved …
  • Correct, it seems like editorializing also. Removed [50].
  • I have added some text on the definition. [51] based on Guthrie.
• "Plato's Socrates often claims that he is aware of his own lack of knowledge …" You cite "Guthrie, p. 222", but there is no page 222 in the edition cited.
  • It is page 122. fixed. [52]. Sorry, it must be really annoying, I apologize.
• Most of the parts of the section on "Socratic ignorance" are cited to McPartland, but the page numbers of the citations don't match up with the pages of her contribution to the Bloomsbury Companion. I also don't think the quotations are really helpful, since we have the summary of their meaning at the beginning of each paragraph.
  • I removed 2 out of 3 quotations. [53]. Fixed page issue.
    • Ah, it should be "his contribution" - the author is Keith McPartland. I think this citation problem is fixed now; I tweaked the cite in the sources section to correspond. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• "There are varying explanations of the inconsistency, mostly in terms of differing interpretations of the meaning of 'knowledge'." The rest of this paragraph does not discuss this intriguing suggestion. And again, the citations are to McPartland but don't line up with the page range of her chapter.
  • Ok, I will elaborate. --->So here [54]. I am not sure if I should elaborate further and use Vlastos comments on Knowledge E and C. It would turn too technical, wont it?
• "While Socrates claims that he has acquired cognitive achievement in some aspects of knowledge …" What does this mean? What is an "aspect of knowledge"? What is a "cognitive achievement" if not knowledge? It may help to mention that there are many Greek terms for knowledge-related concepts (episteme, techne, doxa, sophrosyne, etc) not all of which match up with our English terms. [55] has some discussion of this.
  • I removed the sentence coz it was repeating staff mentioned before [56]
• " … mostly based on the depiction of Socrates by Plato and Aristotle". You cite Lane at 239 for this, but the page numbers don't match up. Also, it might help to provide a little context for the claim about Aristotle in particular, since the discussion of him above is pretty brief.
  • Are you sure it doesnt match? I feel it does? Ok, I might add something about Aristotle, tomorrow. -->I added some info on Aristotle[57]. I placed it at the first sections, I thought it would be more relevant there.
• "Socrates bites Euthyphro several times (metaphorically)". I don't get what this means, and I don't think the extended discussion of the Euthryphro is necessary.
  • I removed the phrase[58] It was suppose to mean that Socrates was being ironist towards Euthyphro. Although examples are not necessary, I lean towards including a few, so the reader could have a glimse on how Socrates was philosophizing (or being ironic, in this situation). Surely, they shouldn't be extensive.
• "Aristotle used the term eirōneia (a Greek word, later Latinized, from which the English word irony comes) to describe Socrates's self-deprecation. Eirōneia, then, contrary to modern meaning, meant to conceal a narrative that was not stated …" This passage is very hard to understand.
  • Since it is hard to understand, a little out of scope (it is more about etymology of the term rather than socrates) I removed it[59]
• The citation to Lane at 241–242 to cite the sentence beginning "The mainstream opinion …" does not correspond to the pagination of the essay.
  • I rephrased [60]
• "Gregory Vlastos has identified a more complex pattern of irony in Socrates, where his words have a double meaning, both ironic and not …" What is the significance of this "pattern"? It's unclear from the text.
  • I tried to elaborate, hope this is better.[61]
• "Not everyone was amused …" The citation here does not match up with the pagination of Lane's essay.
  • Also it belongs in the reception of Socrates, so I removed it. [62]
• "For Socrates, the pursuit of eudaimonia …" Penner does not use the word eudaimonia in the passage you cite, just "happiness". The essay also starts at page 260, not 259.
  • True, but the context seems the same. In the same book, next chapter, Bobonich says "In this chapter, I shall examine the idea of eudaimonia or happiness in Socrates’ thought" I removed it anyway[63].
• The citation to Reshotko 2013, p. 159. does not match up with the pagination of her essay.
  • It s 158. fixed. [64], Fixed "again" [65]. Also fixed Lane's [66]
    • It looks like the Ober/Lane confusion is resolved now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• It would be good to expressly define Socratic intellectualism at some point. You sometimes suggest it is the narrow thesis that no one errs willingly (in other words, that akrasia does not exist), while you also say that it is the quite broad thesis that Socrates thought virtue and knowledge were important. In my experience the former is much more commonly associated with the term "intellectualism"—after all, it's hard to find a philosopher who doesn't think virtue and knowledge are important! One of the sources you cite ([67]) has a concise description of virtue intellectualism and motivational intellectualism—perhaps you could draw on that.
  • I rephrased. [68]. I think virtue intellectualism means that he thought knowledge is a building block of virtue. I hope it is clearer now.
• "Priority given to the intellect as being the way to live a good life, diminishing or placing aside irrational beliefs or passions, is the hallmark of Socratic moral philosophy." This is quite a sweeping claim that probably needs more than one source/consensus among scholars.
  • Is the objection at the word "hallmark" Because ok, that sounds a little bit too much. But the rest, I dont see why it is a sweeping change. I will rephrase and if the objetion is elsewhere pls note me. --->rephrased [69] I do not consider the rest as a sweeping claim. Socrates was "notorious" for the importance he placed on rationality. (well, I like him for that part)
    • Objection was mainly to "hallmark"; I think it looks good now.
• Brickhouse and Smith, discussing Socrates' views on akrasia ([70]), are much more circumspect than the text of the article: "Socrates's total rejection of akrasia (acting because of your irrational passions contrary to your knowledge or beliefs) has puzzled scholars."
  • Yes, I had to summarize. Also, I would like to include that diachronic belief-akrasia, but it would turn way too technical and hard to read. I will see if I can come up with an idea ...
    • I rephrased. I think I was mostly concerned about the phrase "total rejection". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• "In Ancient Greece, and therefore in Athens, organized religion was fragmented …" This strikes me as quite a logical leap. Just because something was generally true in Greece does not mean it was true in Athens. I don't see much value in this paragraph, actually: it makes a bunch of very broad claims that don't add much to the reader's understanding.
  • Correct, It 's due to copyediting. Rephrased to match the source better. [71]
• "His discussions on religion always fall under the scope of his rationalism." What does this mean?
  • Changed the word to lens. Means he examines religion using rationalism. [72]
• " … where he reaches a revolutionary conclusion which takes him far from the age's usual practice …" This strikes me as … a little much. It's also not clear what, exactly, the revolutionary conclusion is supposed to be.
  • Ok, revolutionary might be too much. But on my defense, source says (at the previos page) "In respect of these venerable principles, Socrates can be ranked a self-conscious moral revolutionary", so maybe I was carried away. So I removed the specific word [73]. Also, I change a word to make it clearer what the conclusion is [74]
• "The rejection of traditional forms of piety placed a moral burden on ordinary Athenians …" What is the "moral burden" and how does rejecting "traditional forms of piety" place it?
  • I rephrased to make it clearer[75] Also, I removed the part that says that they were his jurors, it is not relevant to the specific section.
    • I did a little more reworking, which I hope didn't change the meaning too much. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Socrates argued that the gods were inherently wise and just, a perception far from traditional religion at that time." This is a stronger claim than what the source says.
  • Yes, I added 263-266. [76] I think the sentence reflects the claim of the author.
• "The implications of this puzzle lead to the rejection of the traditional Greek theology, since the Homeric gods fought against each other." First, it's not clear that a puzzle itself can have implications—it only starts to have implications when you pick a side in the Euthyphro dilemma. Second, how exactly is Greek theology challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma? And third, why does this challenge lead us to reject Greek theology?
  • I rephrased, I hope the answer to the questions are clearer now. [77]
    • What is the relevance of the eye for an eye principle to the Euthyphro dilemma? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• "These signs did not offer him any positive belief on moral issues; rather, they were predictions of future events that couldn't be assessed through reason." I don't understand this sentence. Why can't you assess a prediction through reason? And why can't these predictions give us beliefs about morality?
  • I rephrased a little bit since I noted there could lead to confusion[78]. I do not know the whys, I realize that the divine messages Socrates receive where about simple and plain things such as don't ride that horse, or dont take that man as your student.
• "In Xenophon's Memorabilia, Socrates constructs an argument that resonates with a belief in intelligent design." This is quite an evasive way to phrase it. I would hew closer to what McPherran says. It would also be good to have some other sources to see whether they link this aspect of Socrates's thought to modern-day intelligent design arguments or with other intellectual traditions.
  • I rephrase to match the text better.[79] I don't know if we should add other authors addressing this issue. The same author repeats himself at Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Also at Brill Companion there are some mentions on the subject but the chapters are not specific on Socratic religion, so I would prefer to avoid them.
• "It has been a source of puzzlement how Socratic religious beliefs can be consistent with his strict adherence to rationalism." This statement is not clearly supported by the source (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.006). It's perhaps implied in what McPherran does say on that page, but not clearly stated.
  • I was referring to this text (that is at pg 115, not 114)[[80] Our texts – Divine Mission (T3), Extrarational Information (T4), and Daimonion (T5) – should now prompt us to ask how it is that Socrates can also subscribe to his Ignorance Principle (T2): for, lacking wisdom, how can Socrates be confi dent that gods such as Apollo even exist, let alone be assured that Apollo always speaks the truth (21b) and that his divine dreams and signs are not mere delusions? Moreover, since he also endorses the Rationality Principle (T1), we can expect him to justify the claims implied by these texts; but it is hard to see how the Socratic Method could provide that sort of warrant (since it appears to only reveal the inconsistency of interlocutors’ beliefs; hence, their lack of expert knowledge). Do you still think we should rephrase? Do you have any suggestions?
• "Socrates claims at his trial that this is what prevented him from entering into politics …" I don't think this extended quotation is helpful.
  • I rephrased[81]. It is helpful since, as Long writes, it is the fullest account of daimonion. I think now I rephrased it is clearer why it is helpful. Prior, it awkwardly, indeed.
• "Whether Socrates genuinely thought he lacked knowledge …" Why are Vlastos's views given so much more airtime in this paragraph than everyone else's? The sentence "Knowledge-C is the something unquestionable whereas Knowledge-E is the result of Socrates's elenchus, his way of examining things" isn't quite grammatical and is pretty confusing.
  • Vlastos is a significant, if not the most significant scholar on Socrates. In Cambridge Companion, he is mentioned 166 times, while in Bloomsbury, 145 times. His views are vital. I tried to explain knowledge-E a little better[82]. I am aware that these are hard to grasp topics.
• "Not everyone has been impressed by this semantic dualism." I can sort of see the idea here—Lesher, I take it, is saying that if Socrates thought each word had one and only one meaning, he couldn't have endorsed the dualism that Vlastos imputes to Socrates. It would be good to make the connection more explicit.
  • Correct. Rephrased[83]
• "Socrates's theory of virtue states that all virtues are essentially one, since they are a form of knowledge." The logical connection between the virtues being one and being a form of knowledge is not clear. This whole paragraph is pretty hard to follow. Also, isn't the "unity of virtue" theory typically imputed to Plato, not Socrates? (Genuine question.)
  • Plato had a distinct theory of virtue. See for example Rowe 2006, who is quoting a paper by Cooper 1984: Everyone knows that in the Republic Plato advances the theory that the soul has three independent parts: reason, spirit and appetite, as they are usually called in English. Using this theory he constructs an account of the human virtues: each of the three parts of the soul has its own special role to play in a human being’s life, and virtue, for us, consists in each of them playing its own role fully and in harmony with the others. Thus human virtue taken as a whole, according to the Republic, is a complex interrelationship among three separate psychological elements, each of which has its own indispensable contribution to make. Now this theory of virtue contrasts sharply with the Socratic theory found, for example, in the Protagoras.2 According to the Socratic theory virtue is essentially a property of the intellect (and never mind what other parts of the soul there may be). That Plato in the Republic is self-consciously rejecting this Socratic theory is by now well accepted; and most philosophical readers no doubt agree that the Republic’s theory is a distinct improvement.... Anyway, I will try to fix that paragraph, there are some weak points there. ---->hopefully, this is an improvement [84]
    • What does "Since knowledge is united, virtues are united as well" mean? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• " … and other young males". "Young male" is quite an odd phrase, but it's not clear in context how old Alcibiades was supposed to have been when Socrates (may have) had a sexual relationship with him. "Young boys" is a whole other kettle of fish—Socrates is generally thought to be a pederast, not a pedophile.
  • Changed to "young persons".[85]. I couldn't find a source commenting on the age of Alciviades when he (may have) had a sexual relation with Socrates.
• " … since Socrates was known for his self-restraint". This formulation implies that Socrates thought he shouldn't have sexual relationships with young men. It's also not clear that general self-restraint (eg, moderation in eating or drinking) would or should extend to sex.
  • Yes, but the source implies this as well. It says "If we look more closely at these passages, something strange emerges. As the fragments from Phaedo and Aristoxenos already suggest, though Socrates may have had unusually strong sensual appetites, he seems to have had them firmly under control". We do not know. I will see if I can rephrase to make it clearer. I removed "since", maybe it makes things better...[86] Couldnt come up with a better solution.
• The last three sentences in the paragraph beginning "The Socratic theory of love" seem kind of random. Also, I'm surprised by the claim that Socrates's views on love come mostly from Lysis. What about Symposium? (Again, genuine question.)
  • I was also more familiar with Symposium before reading the Sources, but it seems at Lysis, Socrates explores the nature of love, while Symposium, there are hints to sexual attraction. Also statements on love at Symposium are echoed in Lysis. Maybe that s why sources are discussing Lysis more than Symposium in relation to love. Anywayz, for the three last sentences, I rephrased to help with the flow. [87] I am not certain if it solves the problem.
• "Socrates viewed himself as a political artist." This strikes me as an overly literal—and certainly controversial—reading of the quotation that follows. Greek philosophers thought of a lot of things as technai, but that doesn't mean they thought that people who practiced technai were artists in the contemporary sense of that word.
  • I changed the opening sentence. [88]
• " … as Socrates did not hold any respect for politicians and rhetoricians who would stoop to using tricks to mislead the public". This overreads the source, IMO.
  • Yes, correct. I changed the sentence. We are closer to the source now [89]
• "A less mainstream argument suggests that Socrates was for democratic republicanism, placing Athens above the people and occupying in the middle ground of democrats and oligarchs." The claim that republicanism is the "middle ground" between democracy and oligarchy is controversial, to say the least. It would help to explain the version of republicanism ascribed to Socrates, as—unlike democracy and oligarchy—it's a pretty specific and not super widely known political theory.
  • Fixed [90]
• I think the last paragraph in the political philosophy section should be removed or expanded. At present, it's sort of a hodgepodge of claims that aren't well developed.
  • Hmm...it surely seems so, but it shouldn't. Liberalism, social contract leads to civic disobedience are related issues. I will try to make it clearer. Hopefully this is better. [91]
    • Much better, thanks. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Almost all philosophical currents after Socrates traced their roots to him: Plato's Academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, the Cynics, and the Stoics." I don't really see this in the sources cited.
  • At Long, it says: Socrates, then – and this is the second salient fact – owes his philosophical significance to the diverse ways he was interpreted, lauded, and sometimes even criticized by authors who, thanks to their own intellectual and educational creativity, made Greek philosophy the major cultural presence it had not yet become during his own lifetime. With the founding of official schools of philosophy – the Academy, the Lyceum, the Garden of Epicurus, the Zenonian Stoa – and with less formally organized philosophical movements, especially the Cynics... Anyway, if I recall correctly, I have read about this issue in other works, more explicitly, so I will try to locate and cite it. --->I added another page from Guthrie and two pages from Ahbel-Rappe 2011 [92].
• "He was considered to be the man who moved philosophy from a study of the natural world, as was the case for pre-Socratic philosophers, to a study of humanity." The way this is phrased suggests that, after Socrates, philosophy was solely the "study of humanity", which isn't the case (see philosophy of science). The source says "Socrates, who succeeded them [the "original philosophers"] much later, said that … what was most useful was investigation of how best to conduct one’s life, avoid bad things and get the greatest possible share of fine things."
  • Correct, I watered it down.[93]
• "The Socratic priority of eudaimonia was accepted among all his successors …" I see almost none of the following two sentences in the source (Guthrie pp 165–66).
  • Correct, I removed the phrase and slightly rephrased. [94]
• "For Parmenides, only one thing existed and that was the "good" Socrates was searching for; Euclid continued Socrates's thought." This sentence is very confusing. I assume "Parmenides" should be "Euclid" or "Euclid, following Parmenides"?
  • I rephrased (radically) [95]
• "It is clear, however, that their impact reached Cicero." Why is Cicero relevant here? The next paragraph is about Stoicism—is that the connection?
  • Correct. Removed [96]
• "Their moral doctrines focused on how to live a smooth life through wisdom and virtue, giving a crucial role to virtue for happiness and the relation between goodness and ethical excellence, all of which echoed Socratic thought." I get the general idea here but this sentence is pretty unclear. Is the idea that virtue is important to attain happiness (i.e., I assume, eudaimonia)?
  • Yes, I added the word attain. [97] I do not know how to improve it further...
• "At the same time, the philosophical current of Platonism claimed Socrates as its predecessor …" I would be hesitant to identify Platonism with academic skepticism—the claim that skepticism is Platonistic would require more sourcing. I take it what we're dealing with here is the views of people at Plato's Academy, which needn't be Platonistic views.
  • Hm..I get your point. It was not my intention to say that skepticism is platonistic, but academic skepticism was a feature of Plato's Academy. I think it is not a controversial opinion. But to avoid confusion, I removed the specific word. [98]
• It looks like there is a confusion of "Lane" and "Ober". The contributors to the Cambridge Companion are Melissa Lane and Josiah Ober. The article lists Josiah Ober and Josiah Lane, both as authors of the chapter "Socrates and Democratic Athens". I hope this is a quick fix (presumably just changing the citation to "Josiah Lane" to read "Melissa Lane" and changing the relevant chapter to "Reconsidering Socratic Irony" (doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.011).
  • Fixed. [99]
• "Also, his Socratic ignorance did not resonate well with their criteria of truths." I don't understand this sentence.
  • Indeed confusing and I think it is a little too much of a detail, their attack to Socratic epistemology. Out of scope of an encyclopedic article. Removed [100]
• "perhaps because of the resemblance in this regard with Muhammad's life" This is not in the pages cited of the Alon chapter.
  • P 318 says ... This combination might have struck a chord by its similarity to the Prophet’s personality... I have changed the text to represent the source in a better way[101]
• "In medieval times, little of Socrates's thought survived in the Christian world as a whole; however, works on Socrates from Christian scholars such as Lactantius, Eusebius and Augustine were maintained in the Byzantine Empire, where Socrates was studied under a strong Christian lens." Neither Lactantius, Eusebius, nor Augustine are mentioned in Tazio's article. The claim about a "strong Christian lens" is probably fair, but the other bits need sourcing.
  • I removed the word "strong" and provided another source for other names. [102]
• "Also, Hegel sees the Socratic use of rationalism as a continuation of Protagoras' subjectivism …" Can you explain this some more?
  • Yes, hope this is better [103]
• "Hegel did not see the Socratic method as maieutic …" I assume "maieutic" is a technical term for Hegel—what does it mean?
  • I removed the sentence.[104] After looking it again and again, it seems it is not a proper summary, the text of the source is more like a view on how Hegel compared Socrates to Sophists. Interesting but out of the scope of the article.
• "at a later stage, Kierkegaard's view on him as a pure ironist shifted, and he found ethical elements in Socratic thought" I don't see this in the page cited.
  • Correct, removed [105] I think ve read about it though somewhere, but cant locate it.
• Is "Socrates in popular culture" really necessary? It reads like trivia at the moment and I don't see much encyclopedic value. Readers are presumably aware that Socrates is well known as a figure.
  • Removed [106] You are prob right.

Overall

As a whole, checking the article against the GA criteria:

• Well written
  • Aside from a few confusing sentences that I've flagged, it's good on MOS compliance and general readability.
• Verifiable with no original research
  • This has been my biggest concern. The vast majority of the bits I've flagged above have been statements that don't correspond directly to the sources cited. Assuming that those concerns have been addressed (I haven't yet gone back to check on your replies), though, this—which I see as the biggest hurdle—should be good.
• Broad in its coverage
  • Certainly. You've taken a massive topic and done an admirable job of picking a good selection of key areas to summarize.
• Neutral
  • Apart from a few places where Socrates seems overpraised, which I think we've both addressed throughout this review, I think the article is neutral.
• Stable
  • Yes.
• Illustrated
  • Yes (excellently).

Overall, we're quite close to GA status. This is a mammoth piece of work and you should be very proud. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the closure of this GA Assessment, thanks for your nice words, your copy-editing, your through-out review, paying attention to details and ultimately improving the article! Wikipedia wins! Cinadon36 12:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• In order to keep continuity, could I suggest that Template:Socrates be added to the top of the Sources and the Socratic problem section in place of the statue? These kinds of templates get re-added over time anyways, so it might be better to get ahead of that, rather than have a random editor come along every few months and put it somewhere that messes up the article formatting. Aza24 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Passing

I have two remaining questions which you and I can address at some point in the future. They're listed below; I copied the whole of each thread for ease of references. Given that the vast majority of issues I noted have been resolved, and in the spirit of WP:IAR, I'm passing this now. The two remaining questions/comments are as follows.

• "The implications of this puzzle lead to the rejection of the traditional Greek theology, since the Homeric gods fought against each other." First, it's not clear that a puzzle itself can have implications—it only starts to have implications when you pick a side in the Euthyphro dilemma. Second, how exactly is Greek theology challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma? And third, why does this challenge lead us to reject Greek theology?
  • I rephrased, I hope the answer to the questions are clearer now. [107]
    • What is the relevance of the eye for an eye principle to the Euthyphro dilemma? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • As I see it, Euthyphro dilemma hints that Goodness is irrelevant of God(s) and since Gods acts are sometimes profoundly not-good, that highlights an inconsistency in the general religious narrative of the time that was employing the eye for an eye principle, among others. Socrates with Euthyphro dilemma says/hints that we should never do evil acts, even for revenge.
• "Socrates's theory of virtue states that all virtues are essentially one, since they are a form of knowledge." The logical connection between the virtues being one and being a form of knowledge is not clear. This whole paragraph is pretty hard to follow. Also, isn't the "unity of virtue" theory typically imputed to Plato, not Socrates? (Genuine question.)
  • Plato had a distinct theory of virtue. See for example Rowe 2006, who is quoting a paper by Cooper 1984: Everyone knows that in the Republic Plato advances the theory that the soul has three independent parts: reason, spirit and appetite, as they are usually called in English. Using this theory he constructs an account of the human virtues: each of the three parts of the soul has its own special role to play in a human being’s life, and virtue, for us, consists in each of them playing its own role fully and in harmony with the others. Thus human virtue taken as a whole, according to the Republic, is a complex interrelationship among three separate psychological elements, each of which has its own indispensable contribution to make. Now this theory of virtue contrasts sharply with the Socratic theory found, for example, in the Protagoras.2 According to the Socratic theory virtue is essentially a property of the intellect (and never mind what other parts of the soul there may be). That Plato in the Republic is self-consciously rejecting this Socratic theory is by now well accepted; and most philosophical readers no doubt agree that the Republic’s theory is a distinct improvement.... Anyway, I will try to fix that paragraph, there are some weak points there. ---->hopefully, this is an improvement [108]
    • What does "Since knowledge is united, virtues are united as well" mean? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • As I get it, (Socrates thought)...that while we know various things (parts of knowledge), all these are interlinked somehow (and consisting the united whole knowledge). Cinadon36 07:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

All good on both; I think my brain wasn't quite working. On a second look they make sense to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:48, 23 December 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. Cinadon36 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. Cinadon36

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 @Bulbubly:. 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. Cinadon36 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Still working on it.Cinadon36 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 ^(¥¥) 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...Cinadon36 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. - car chasm (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the reference. [109]. No citation is needed at the lead. Cinadon36 09:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)