PhillipLundberg
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
edit
|
Important and relevant policies and guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:No original research. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Who erased my "Stranger" notes...
editHello, I'm new at this but it seems to me that "the stranger" comments were quite pertinent and though moving out of time all together may of been a bit much, the rest was simply good information for anyone concerned with Plato's philosophy - in particular the moving away from "Socrates" being involved in the dialogues and on the the Eleatic, Manitenean and Athenian strangers... I wasn't trying to promote any particular views in this...
- Again, see the above link. Your notes were "personal research" (and, indeed, overtly speculative), thus not allowed in the article I'm afraid.
- If you need to know who made a particular edit on an article, click on the "history" tab.
- Always remember to sign your comments (not Edit summaries, though) with four tildes (~~~~). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mel -
editForgive me if I disagree (at least in part) - may I explain.
I do not see anything overtly personal in having the insight that just as Socrates was The Central Figure in Plato's "early" dialogues, later on he Steps to the Side - (Sophist and Statesman) and the "Eleatic STRANGER' - very strangely - steps forward to become, as it were, the New Socrates. That this is so in these 2 very important dialogues, and that the Athenian Stranger is the Main Protagonist (Socr-Replacement) in the Laws is simply FACT. That, moreover, the Manitenean Stranger is suddenly introduced in the Symposium as being Socrates' teacher, this Also is very obvious and FACT. I don't see that saying that the "Stranger" is a major figure or "character" in the Platonic Corpus is, per se, in any way being subjective or tooting my own horn... though perhaps I took the ball a little bit far by criticizing the common opinions that don't want to consider "otherness" in it's full ramifications.... The mention of Socrates in the early dialogues (to me) almost begs that the Stranger be at least remarked upon in the late dialogues... What one has to say about Alciabides and Phaedrus, this is perhaps more than is needed in this particular encyclopedia of sorts, though they are the only two figures/characters who seem to repeat quite a bit... not as much as Socrates or 'strangers' though.
Hence, I'd ask that you might consider putting back at least some of my earlier additions as, If what I have mentioned above is Going too Far... then I don't need to waste my time on making this website any better... and that is the idea... I'll likewise admit (on the other hand) that I do take personal interest in my insights and think that there is something dialectical in the relationships that one values.
yours, Phillip Lundberg.
--
Might I suggest, sir, that we are creating an encyclopedia by citing, paraphrasing, and quoting what wise people have written and said about, for example Socrates. Hence, it would help us greatly if you could find some place in the writings of Spinoza or William James, just to name two possibilities, where Spinoza, James, or someone as highly regarded has used your idea of the importance of the "Stranger" in the philosophy of Socrates? Generally, if you cannot cite it to what a scholar said, then for purposes of an encyclopedia, it is forbidden original research. Does that make sense? --Rednblu 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC) In answer to your query, 1st, I only would want to give up if it seemed that I had little to no chance... which is somewhat open at this point; 2ndly: as regards "tool" - I actually was using it as it "was there" - ie: right in the paragraph under comment > that we humans make tools of fire, sticks and stones, etc so as to "manipulate" our environment >>>> BUT ALSO, because Plato uses the metaphor of 'tools' in his investigation into sophistry > that, namely, Sophists make tools of themselves to pursue what they "suppose" is in their interest.... so there were 2 reasons for the tool metaphor, neither of which anyone seemed to have understood >> and I guess I should also mention that phrases such as "sharpen your wits" seem to imply that one's capactities can be improved (spiritual as well as material) through a litte hard work! - 3rdly: AS Regards the word "LUMP" - it is derisive, I agree, but that's just my point, the sentence [paragraph] under discussion LUMPS > Science, Philos, Religion & MYTHOLOGY - ALL together as if this made a bit of sense!!!! which was my core objection. I hope this is a bit clearer and I will check back tomorrow to see if continued debate is worthwhile or if the level of discourse seems non-conducive to further debate.... thanks for your encouragement to not give up without at least a little bit of explanantion(s). Phillip 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC) + 3rdly: AS Regards the word "LUMP" - it is derisive, I agree, but that's just my point, the sentence [paragraph] under discussion LUMPS > Science, Philos, Religion & MYTHOLOGY - ALL together as if this made a bit of sense!!!! which was my core objection. I hope this is a bit clearer and I will check back tomorrow to see if continued debate is worthwhile or if the level of discourse seems non-conducive to further debate.... thanks for your encouragement to not give up without at least a little bit of explanantion(s). Phillip 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)