Talk:Socrates

(Content moved to talk:Trial of Socrates)

trial and death

I'd like to suggest that the section concerning his trial and death mention the fact that a decent number of his close associates (alcibiades, Charmides, etc.) betrayed athens in the war - and, if Plato's work is any indication, he may have held undemocratic views. Karl Popper, for one, believed that this was the true reason why he was put to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.51.40 (talk)

Socrates' existence

Do we know for CERTAIN that Socrates existed? My understanding was that that issue was still up in the air. --Dante Alighieri 01:05 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Not at all. Perahps it would be if he was only known from Plato's dialogues, but he's discussed by the historian Xenophon and mocked by the comic Aristophanes, possibly among others.

Unless there was another Socrates, he's also mentioned by Thucydides. Adam Bishop 00:56, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now this is ridiculous. One might as well question whether René Descartes existed. And then, how can we be certain you exist? --Eequor 02:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite evident from Descartes' writings that he cannot think, therefore by his own reason he does not exist. - Centrx 16:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, thats great. i'll have to remember that. not much on wikipedia makes me laugh. --Heah (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

haha... that is one of the funniest things I have ever read! Frank Carmody 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe funny, but erroneous reasoning, because even if it's true to say "Person P thinks, therefore P exists", it's not necessarily true to say "Person P can't think, therefore P doesn't exist." Centrx has committed the fallacy of Denying the antecedent.

The fact that many people spoke of him and claimed influence from him (Xenophon and Plato to quote only the two most famous) show that he existed...

Many people spoke of Jesus the Messiah and claimed influence from him.

Yes, and Jesus also existed. TheTruth12 17:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this blind faith is touching, but there's not an erg of evidence that Socrates was anything but a rhetorical device. For example, he never "wrote" anything...forcing the faithful to rationalize that he must have been illiterate. There's no purely mundane reference to him, for example a formal record of his execution. He's like Troy, something which is referred to in a way which has nothing to do with historicity, and yet which people have blindly accepted for so long that now they're horrified when someone points out the utter lack of hard evidence. --Kaz 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As A.R. Lacey said in a 1971 article on Socrates: "The evidence, inadequate though it is, is too widespread to allow such an agnosticism without insisting on a degree of rigour we are unwilling to use elsewhere...." For example, if you're willing to call Socrates' existence into question, why not call into question George Washington's? After all, "all" we have in support of thinking Washington existed is a bunch of dusty old books that claim he existed!! Very touching indeed; but does this make us question that he existed?

Almost all the characters in Plato's dialogues are historical: why would Socrates be an exception? We have a letter of Plato's, believed to be genuine (the Seventh Letter), which mentions the historical figure Socrates. Socrates is explicitly presented as a historical figure by Xenophon and Aristotle. He plays a part in Aristophanes play BEFORE any dialogues appear. We also have fragments from a number of other writers who were contempories of Socrates who mention him. There is copious mention of a great deal of lost texts that mention Socrates, which survived certainly into Roman times. Every single ancient author up to Roman times, who says either way, believes he is a historical figure, and clearly they were in a better position to judge. One would have to be a very bad historian not to believe that this points to Socrates' existence. Dast 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, most hisorians also believe Troy was a historical place, like the majority of places in Homer (not including, of course, such places as Hades). Dast 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates' marriage

Not a critical point, but regarding Socrates' marriage, I guess there are some conflicting views. Namely, Xanthippe may or may not be the only wife.

The following page discusses the issue rather in detail. http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/socrates/wpages39toendpt1.html

Tomos 17:37 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

In the commentaries to Phaedo, I've found this : About Xanthipe, Diogenes Laert says the following: Aristotle says that Socrates had two wifes; by the first one, Xanthipe, he had a son Lamprocles, by the second one, Xanthipe, he had sons Sophronisk and Menescen. It is said by others that Mirtha was his first wife. And again, others say that he was married to both of them at once, this is said by Satyr and Hyeronim of Rhodes. Could somebody check this up, and possibly do a rewrite of the biographical section? Thanks. May-hem 08:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes Laertius (Lives 2.26) is our only source for this story. He is often unreliable, particularly when he doesn't name his source. Here his source appears to be Aristotle, but the remark about Myrto appears nowhere in the extant works of Aristotle. Since Plutarch mentions Aristotle in connection with a story of Myrto and Socrates' involvement, it's pretty safe to conjecture that Plutarch was using the same source as Diogenes was. But Plutarch says that the Myrto-Socrates story is found in a work titled On Good Birth, which was attributed to Aristotle, but which (as Plutarch himself points out) may not have actually been written by Aristotle. In any case, the Myrto-Socrates story that Plutarch relates does not involve a marriage between Myrto and Socrates; Plutarch's source says only that Socrates, who was already married, attended to Myrto's financial concerns when she became a widow. This was not unusual and obviously doesn't entail a marriage to Myrto. I suspect that this was the source of Diogenes' story, and that Diogenes simply misinterpreted the passage. There is simply no other evidence of a marriage between Socrates and Myrto, or any other woman besides Xanthippe. (For the quotations of the relevant passages from Diogenes and Plutarch, see The Complete Works of Aristotle, edited by J. Barnes, vol. 2, p. 2423.)

Demos and democracy

What is the basis for the claim that Socrates supported the democracy?

Nonexistent, IMO. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:42, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

He fought for his country (rather, his polis) when it was under military attack, but his scorn for democracy would seem to have come out again and again. Is his admiration for the life of Sparta and Crete universally consdiered to be a fabrication? Again, "enemy" would seem rather a strong term for Critias' attitude toward him: that fellow's enemies tended to suffer something rather worse than being allowed to go home and keep their mouths shut.

That phrasing is from my keyboard, and I agonized over it. I don't think "estranged" covers it, nor "disfavour". Finally I plumped for "enemy", half in frustration, half in the hope that someone would come and moderate the statement with a more apposite phrasing, because I could not. The fact remains that he (Critias) did not remain part of Socrates' circle, and there was some degree of animus between them due to the (lack of) Socrates' role in the 30 tyrants fracas. -- CAoap

While we're up, is "satirical distortions" (of Aristophanes) a reasonable term? All satire tends to distort, after all; the reader, knowing this, is invited to think that these were more distorted than those of, say, Voltaire or Swift—a highly debatable view. Dandrake 01:45, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hope my recent edits addressed this problem. If not, feel free to adjust the phrasing. What this article lacks BTW is coverage of the whole 30 tyrants thing, and also Socrates as the prytanie (sp?) during the judicial murder of the generals of the Sicilian campaign. I've been meaning to get to it for a long time. I've got most of my sources pretty well organized, but this article is just so central, that I a a bit intimidated of making an extensive addition. I know I shouldn't, but the fact remains. -- CAoap

And perhaps someone can speak to the association b/t Plato's family and one of the Tyrants? +sj +

Apostrophes' Troublemaking

Looks as if we're in for an apostrophe dispute. I reverted a change that added back an s to Socrates' after another person had removed them all. It is traditional in many places to use the form Socrates' , so much so that the Chicago Manual of Style used to list Jesus, Moses, and Socrates as exceptions to the usual rule of adding 's to words and names ending in s. The latest edition goes further: generally, Greek names in s get only the apostrophe.

Perhaps this is a trans-Atlantic difference in usage. But before the international incidents get under way, will supporters of Socrates's please give some citations? Dandrake 17:39, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

No desire for a dispute here! Hi, Beowulf king. I didn't notice that just before my edit you had removed all the final possessive esses; good to know Chicago has a special category for Greek names. [I was browsing the recent changes list b/c the last editor before B.k. was an anon IP formerly used to vandalize other pages...] As a proofreader, I'm most glad to have learned another acceptable usage case. +sj + 08:40, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

Actually, I got it wrong, from memory, though close enough for this purpose. What they really say: "Names of more than one syllable with an unaccented ending pronounced -eez"; and then there are Jesus' and Moses' cases as well. Dandrake 22:28, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the double-check. I suppose Moses and Jesus both have unaccended last syllables. So if a hispanic user named JeSUS starts posting, we can safely have this argument again? +sj + 08:16, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

And more and more

However, the person whose unacceptable user name has been canceled (thanks, Ed) was right in the substance of the personal-attack comment that has been deleted per policy (thanks again): there are four Cardinal Virtues in Christian tradition, and I've never heard of the existence of a comparable earlier list with any number of entries. So I'm changing the text, subject to correction by anyone who have find a calssic Greek list of five. Dandrake 19:55, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Socrates and Hemlock

The article on Hemlock contains the following statement:

The Greek philosopher Socrates supposedly drank one of above toxic hemlocks to fulfil his execution sentence. However, this story is now known to be a myth, although Socrates is commonly linked to this form of suicide.

Does anyone have any modern references which can verify or disprove this statement that the story is a myth? WormRunner | Talk 03:48, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Cicuta virosa. --Eequor 03:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

But this doesn't have to do with Socrates. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At least one ancient source that is good evidence that he did is Plato's Phaedo. Also, this was common practise for someone sentenced to death in 5th cen. Athens.

Plato's Phaedo doesn't mention "hemlock" (or "kōneion" in Greek), though it does say that Socrates drank a "drug" or "potion" that caused his death. (Hemlock is mentioned in Plato's Lysis 219e, but not in connection with Socrates' death.) The idea that the drug in question was hemlock came from later commentators who inferred this from its common use in other contemporary situations (see Xenophon's Hellenica 2.3.56 and Aristophanes' Frogs 123). In the Phaedo Plato describes the effects of the drug on Socrates which are sometimes thought to be inconsistent with the effects that hemlock would have actually had. See http://www.nd.edu/~plato/bloch.htm

His claims

It does Socrates an injustice to say that he claimed that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one; he argued it clearly and (some would say) convincingly. But may we have a statement of why it merely seems at first glance to be paradoxical when he claims to be wiser than others on the basis of his understanding that he knows nothing? It's a clever paradox, in fact. Dandrake 08:25, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't really a paradox. The idea that one's knowledge includes the knowledge that one lacks knowledge does not conflict with a claim that one possesses knowledge; by such a statement, one demonstrates that one possesses knowledge beyond that of a person who lacks the knowledge that they lack knowledge. --Eequor 12:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas one says, "I know that I know nothing" another can ask, "how do you know that"? In which confusion sets in. Why not understand it as, "I don't know that I know anything"?

Greek form of name

I've put in the Greek form of his name with a romanisation. Does anyone have any opinions on whether this is a Good Thing? If it is, I might do the same to other entries. Greek form checked in LSJ. m.e. 12:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please be cautious. This has the potential of starting Demotic/Katharevsa/Attic edit wars, which are unnecessary. Thank you for transliterating η as ē and not i. (If such an edit war starts, I will remove the transliteration and defend its absence.) Septentrionalis 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

joints

There are a couple of places where socrates mentions the problem of the joints. It seems linked to the problem of definition and categories. I've let this act as a core for which to form associations. Have you thought about it? I have some answers but would like to hear ideas unaffected by mine. Thanks. WblakesxWblakesx 05:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beliefs Section

The whole section on Philosophical Beliefs came straight from my senior research paper. Here is the works cited page from that report:

Chin, Beverly, et. al., eds. Glencoe World Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000.

Gross, Ronald. “Socrates: Mentor for humanists.” Free Inquiry Spring 2003: p. 57. Expanded Academic ASAP. The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 1 Dec 2004. <http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ses>.

“Socrates.” Discovering Biography. Online Edition 2003. Student Resource Center. The Gale Group. Newark High Library, Newark, DE. December 1, 2004. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC>.

Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins. A Short History of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

“The Religion of Socrates.” Ancient Philosophy Spring 1998: p. 174-177. SIRS Renaissance. SIRS Mandarin, Inc. Newark High School Library, Newark, DE. 1 Dec 2004. <http://sks.sirs.com>.

Thomas, Henry. Understanding the Great Philosophers. Gorden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1962.

This is not a credible list of references. Please use texts specifically dedicated to Plato and Socrates. Larvatus 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

Should it really be states that Socrates is ugly ? Isn't that more for tabloids and magazines and not encyclopedias.

Yes, Socrates' looks are cardinal to his erotic character: the seducer of beautiful young men onto the path of virtue. See Alcibiades' comparisons of Socrates to the statues of Silenus and the satyr Marsyas in the Symposium. Larvatus 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

- I think its relevant, considering its what one of the few pieces of information we have about it. Furthermore, I know at least one philosopher (Nietzsche) has used Socrates's ugliness as a basis for attacking his beliefs. I think he somehow meant that since Socrates was ugly he was an enemy of art and tragedy. This of course has to do with the whole Apollonian/Dionysian duality that Nietzsche loved to rant about it and how Socrates destroyed the Dionysian side and ruined Greek culture, yatta yatta yatta, I don't really know, but I think its relevant.

Some well-informed readers such as Pierre Hadot make a great deal out of Nietzsche's love/hate attitude towards Socrates. But in speaking of Socrates himself, at the expense of his proto-postmodern epigoni, we are better advised to examine his disparagement by that primordial advocate of "will to power", Callicles, in the Gorgias, and the contradictory attitudes of Alcibiades brought to the fore in his speech in the Symposium. In the former instance, Plato makes Socrates suffer Callicles' disparagement of his preoccupation with philosophy as unseemly for an adult, akin to childish lisping. On the latter occasion, Socrates is shown repudiating carnal desires for the sake of his unfulfillable pursuit of the ideal exemplars of their corporeal objects. Plato's account of his grotesque appearance serves as a vivid setting for these insults and privations. Larvatus 11:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

Garlic dildo?

"It is not known whether or not Socrates had a fully-functional phallos, but it's been proven by historians that he used one carved out of garlic, instead." Um, WTF?

This is a) enough of a shocking claim to warrant at least a citation, and preferably more explanation, and b) a bit of a non-sequitur.

Delorted! --FOo 05:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping it would turn out to be true. --teucer

Beleifs revisited

I have some MAJOR issues with the "philosophical beleifs" section of this article. to being with, it in no way mentions that it is difficult to ascertain what Socrates beleived as opposed to Plato, where we get most of our accounts of Socrates. More importantly, it states as fact what are actually non-neutral stands on hotly debated issues of platonic/socratic philosophy. imo they miss the depth of the Platonic drama. It is very debatable as to whether or not Socrates thought philosophers shold actually rule as kings- notice his constant mention of how he CANNOT go to politics, as his deamon always tells him it is wrong; notice the irony of a rhetorical/dramatic masterpeice going on and on about how art is bad because the author doesn't using his own voice when Plato is having Socrates narate the entire Republic. and etc.

It seems to me, if there is going to be a philosophical beleifs of Socrates section, it should make clear the difficulty of ascertaining his thoughts and should use PRIMARY sources to provide some of socrates' beleifs. There is much that i personally beleive is of greater significance and should go in this section, eg the philosophic path as laid out in the symposium and the phaedrus, the search for the GOOD (not necessarily as a "Form"), etc.

so lets all talk about before i single handedly enforce my opinions on the article. we should be able to come to some concensus about what should be there and what should not. but what is there now is only one possible interpretation of his thought, cited only through secondary sources with their own interpretations. we should make clear the variety of possible interpretation and try to use primary source material as much as possible, as this is an encyclopedia.Heah 18:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok nobody said anything so i've gone ahead and done a preliminary edit of the section, trying to be fair and impartial. Citations will be forthcoming where needed and/or requested; it all comes from the text. at the moment i've only noted the dialogue from which something was taken and not the Stephanus pages.Heah 18:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

vandals

somebody just vandalized a lot of stuff as i was in the middle of editing, so i couldn't just revert. i think i cleaned it all up but everyone should double check . . . Heah 19:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

method

does anyone know why "socratic method" was merged with this page? it really should have its own entry, as it isn't about socrates, but a teaching style we have named after him.Heah 20:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

since there haven't been any objections and ALoan consented, I've merged "socratic method" back to Socratic method. Please help with the reorganization and clarification of that page. Heah 21:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate and Deathdate

How come Socrates is showing up as dying in 399 AD!!. Was I shocked, since I am studying a period 800 years later than him. The article has been edited to include his birthday as June 7th, 470 BC, but has not yet been edited in regards to his death: May 7th, 399 BC.

http://www.born-today.com/Today/06-04.htm
http://quotes.tubegator.com/socrates.php
http://members.aol.com/kitecd/c_hmay.htm

I'll add the month and day, and if someone else feels it necessary to update more than that, I would appreciate it.

I saw an anon change the birth year to 469 BC, and there are some references on the web to that. My copy of the Britannica gives c.470, so I reverted to 470 and added the c. Experts feel free to modify.-gadfium 05:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that we can't be sure of the exact dates. We do have evidence, independent of Plato's dialogues, that places his death in 399: due to Diogenes Laertius's Lives, we know that Demetrius Phalereus, in his register of the archons of Athens, claimed that Socrates died during the archonship of Laches, which (as Diogenes Laertius explains) corresponded to first year of the 95th Olympiad, which straddles the years 400 and 399, by our reckoning. (This information is also found in the Parian Chronicle.) It's this fact, together with Socrates' claim in Plato's Apology 17d and Crito 52e that he is seventy (though, according to one of our texts of the Apology, Socrates claims to be "more than seventy"), that makes many people claim that Socrates was born in 469 or 470. Even if we grant all this, we don't know for certain whether his birthyear was 469 or 470, because we don't know for certain at what time of year his trial and execution occurred. Plato's Phaedo 58a-c indicates that his execution happened at the end of the Delian fesitval (and according to Xenophon's Memorabilia 4.8.2 Socrates spend thirty days in prison before execution), but we can't say for certain when exactly during our calendar that would have occurred. According to many scholars, that festival would have occurred during our month of February or March (which is why most put Socrates' death at 399, rather than 400, since the Athenian year began in the summer). This is also why some prefer 470 as a closer estimation of Socrates' birthyear, since if he was 70 in February or March of 399 then he was probably born in 470, unless we imagine that he had just turned seventy at the time of his trial.

Redirection

Why does Daimonion redirect here?

See Trial of Socrates; but I made it redirect to Daemon, which seems better in any case. Septentrionalis 20:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

restoration of philosophy section

i've restored the philosophy section, having been deleted a month ago by an anon ip. if people have problems with it please discuss and fix it as you see fit, but there is no reason that i can see to eliminate it entirely . . . --Heah (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few changes

I would like to, slowly, make the following general changes and would welcome some feed back:

Referencing all major or controversial claims, the former to the primary sources and the latter to the secondary source or sources where the claim is debated.
This is WP policy. Go ahead. Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Including the relevant Stephanus page on all references to Platonic dialogues (e.g. 'I do not think I know what I do not know' Apology (21d)). This would take up relatively little space and would help readers and editers.
This is a wiki. Better to link to the passage at Perseus; the Stephanus would be a reasonable label. Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its better to link to the passage, but there is that whole "quotations" section and the texts are referenced throughout the article. when a text is referenced, there is of course no need to actually include (ie display word-for-word) the sentence/passage being referenced, but i don't beleive that this is what dast was suggesting- the stephanus as the label and the label linking to perseus would probably be ideal. --Heah (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds good. Dast.

Including the latinate Greek word for the major Socratic concepts (e.g. virtue (aretē))
Cui bono? The Hellenist does not want them; the Greekless reader will not benefit. ~~Wikipedia is not a support group for cocktail-party poseurs.~~ Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. arete is not the same as the english word "virtue", and clarification of such points is beneficial. This sort of thing is important for anyone curious about greek thought, not just "cocktail party poseurs."--Heah (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To second Heah: I understand your concern, but placing the original in brackets after a translated word is a fairly universal indication that we must approach the translated word with caution. I don't speak German, but if I read a German translation and see an original German word after its translation I realise that caution is needed and I might be inspired to investigate this word. Also, those in between the Hellenist and the Greekless reader would appreciate the clarification. Perhaps linking the original word to Perseus' Liddel and Scott or some source explaining its problematic translation would be a good idea, or is this too much?

Yeah- words are very important in these matters, and uncanny is not the same as unheimlich just as virtue is not the same as arete. if you read heidegger without investigating the german term "unheimlich" it won't make as much sense. linking the terms to liddel and scott isn't a bad idea. --Heah (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to make some larger changes. To begin with, a more extensive section on the Socratic sources. Currently it is broken into 'Satirical Playwrights' (for Aristophanes) and 'Prose Sources' (for Plato and Xenophon), which is peculiar since Aristophanes is also a prose writer, not a poet.

Hunh? Aristophanes' dialogue is in iambic trimeter; his choruses are three-part odes. See any book on comic metres. (He is often, but not always, translated into prose, for modern performance and the translator's sanity; but that's not the same thing.) Septentrionalis 18:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I've never looked at the Greek, nor am I very well up on Greek literary traditions, so my claim was presumptious. I should have said that the fact that Aristophanes' wrote in metre rather than prose is not sufficient to make him a different sort of source. (The fact that he is writer of comedies could arguably be a reason for distiguishing him from Plato and Xenophon, but Xenophon and Plato also each wrote in different literary styles and had different aims, with their own bias.)--Dast 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy is a different genre than any form of prose, with different purposes; that's why it was in verse to begin with. Whatever do you mean by saying that the Memorabilia is in a different "style" from Plato? Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that Plato wrote dramatic dialogues, which never purported, explicitly, to be historical representations, but Xenophon's Memorabilia is not a dramatic dialogue - it is a record, told in the first person, of his experiences of Socrates, which includes his reports of conversations he claims Socrates had (This is not true of Xenophon's other Socratic works). On your first point, I agree: Greek comedy is a different genre from, say, biographies, novels, academic works, Platonic dialogues or any prose genre, just as it is a different genre from Greek tragedy. My point was simply as follows: the division into poetry and prose is not the most useful way to organise the Socratic sources. In place of poetry and prose, I would suggest a division into earlier and later sources. Dast.

I think it would be a good idea to join these sections and devote a paragraph to each source (and mention the fragmentory (e.g. Aeschines) and later (e.g. Aristotle) sources). This, while interesting in itself, would also clear up confusion about the relation between the historical Socrates and, e.g., the Platonic 'Socrates'.

Whose set of conjectures are you planning to call the "historical" Socrates? Septentrionalis 16:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, i missed that paragraph. i second pmanderson's remark. we cannot clear up the confusion and should not try to do so, but rather present the information that we do have. differences between xenophon and plato and aristophanes should certainly be noted and examined, but we have no way of getting past the sources to the "historical" socrates. --Heah (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I mean distiguishing the historical Socrates, who many would say cannot be found (although I would disagree), from textual representations of him. So far, a reader might wonder what the article means by 'Socrates believes ...' etc, and distinguishing the historical and literary Socrates will clarify this (i.e. that it means, for example, 'Plato, in the early dialogues, has Socrates say ...')--Dast 18:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

excellent- i threw in a disclaimer to that effect a few months back but stopped short of going through the whole thing for wording of such. sounds good.--Heah (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to step on anybody's toes, so any feedback or advice would be very welcome. --Dast 14:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, references would be good. much of the philosophy section is from me and not cited, but i can fix that; most of what is cited is all secondary sources, and imho it seems that the primary sources should be, well, primary. first i have to write my thesis, though. your other ideas sound good too, so i'd say go for it. --Heah (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reference?

"According to Dr. Will Beldam, he was the first person to question everything and everyone, and apparently it offended the leaders of his time."

What is this attribution trying to accomplish? Who is Will Beldam, why is he an authority on Socrates, and if this is a reference, to what work of his is it referring to? I am still learning wiki so sorry about the poor formatting

Obscurity

Against this, his own self-professed lack of knowledge and the clear line between the ideal world and the everyday world are presented; when arguing that Socrates did believe one could become wise.

I removed this sentence from the section on Knowledge. I'm not sure what it is trying to say It did not communicate to me, and I doubt it will to other readers. Septentrionalis 14:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the original sentence went:

It is debated whether or not Socrates believed that one could even become wise. Against this, his own self-professed lack of knowledge and the clear line between the ideal world and the everyday world are presented; when arguing that Socrates did believe one could become wise, the Symposium and other texts detailing the philosophic path are pointed out.

but the last part was deleted on aug. 30 by an ip. the preceding paragraph on midwifery, giving some more context for that line, was also deleted that day. i'm going to restore both. --Heah (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the intro section on Socrates' life was deleted by the same ip, and i've restored that as well. --Heah (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing; still obscure. Septentrionalis 16:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, looks great. --Heah (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates--suicide?

The article Suicide displays a picture of the death of Socrates. Is it accurate to call Socrates' death a suicide? (Anyone wishing to move this debate to that page is welcome to do so.) Thanks! --Dpr 00:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was Nietzsche's interpretation: Socrates offered a cock to Aesculapius in gratitude for being cured of the disease called life. On a narrower view, he did administer a lethal substance to himself. Septentrionalis 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is accurate. He was obliged to drink the hemlock by law, but it was by his own hand. This is still pretty borderline, but from Plato's Crito, Phaedo and Xenophon's Memorabilia (I can search for the references if anyone's interested) it seems that Socrates could have escaped very easily, and lived in exile, but decided to stay and submit to his sentence. Also from Plato's Apology it seems that Socrates could have got off fairly lightly, but instead irritated the judges - seemingly in full awarness of the consequneces - by suggesting his sentence should be, because he benefited the city so much, publically-funded meals (the percentage of judges who voted for his penalty to be a death sentence was actually higher than the percentage who voted he was guilty, the former vote after and the latter before his comments about his penalty). This evidence makes it a little less controversially suicide.--Dast 23:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inaccurate. Though he did irritated the judges, drinking the poison was his sentence. Check also Aristotle near the phrase he would not give the Athenians a chance to sin a third time against philosophy. +MATIA ☎ 23:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That example illustrates how easy it would have been for Socrates to escape.Septentrionalis 23:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophon (if I remember correctly) analyses in depth that it was easy to escape. But I don't think that the majority view is that Socrates suicided. +MATIA ☎ 09:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because he could have escaped does not make it a suicide. According to the sources we have, Socrates drank the poison because that was his sentence and he thought it was just to abide by the law of his city. TheTruth12 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a teacher sends a student to the office. His friend tells him he could easily escape going to the office by dropping out and attending another school. The student says that even though he was unjustly sent to the office, he chose this school and therefore following the teacher's command to go to the office is the right thing to do. Would you say this student sent himself to the office or went there fully on his own accord? Of course not. TheTruth12 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair example. I suppose, then, the only evidence that would allow us to interpret his death as suicide is Xenophon's, but Plato's explanation is perhaps more trustworthy. Dast

xD

Someone has subversively slipped the word Fountainhead into the article :D

Impiety - a doubtful addition

The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War was interpreted as Athena judging the city of for not being pious.

Evidence for this? Septentrionalis 23:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read it somewhere. If it sounds doubtful, then remove it. My understanding is that each city has its own protector god/goddess, and when cities go to war with each other and one loses, it is interpreted of the gods battling in the heavens. The basic mindset is that Athena is surely more powerful than the opposing god, therefore Athens losing must have been caused by Athena's unwillingness to support the city because of impiety towards her. I may have picked this up in W.T. Jones's History of Western Philosophy series (published by Wadsworth Publishing), in its first volume "The Classical Mind". This may be an outdated or unpopular interpretation though, so we can remove the text I wrote for now until we're really sure. FranksValli 04:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true elsehere, and would clearly be true of Athens a century before, in Pisistratus' time; but it requires attestation for the audience of Anaxagoras and Aristophanes. Andocides, perhaps? Septentrionalis 05:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

Socrates was black Socrates black ancestry should be mentioned

Evidence? FranksValli 18:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/religion/myths/pictures/theseus.jpg 4 black athenians surrouded by two whites http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015475?tocId=9015475&query=red-figure

That is: four males being watched by two females, as is the universal convention for Attic pottery. Septentrionalis 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a laundry list

This must be rewritten. We could probably quote Plato that Socrates didn't write anything, and the stuff by Meno would not be part of Socrates' works. +MATIA ☎ 11:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meno (Μένων) is a platonic dialogue. The text in question at gutenberg project is "(Socrates was known for his simple attire, and for wearing his garments over and over till they wore out. However, the only surviving example of his writing is a laundry list, so we know he kept his clothes clean and somewhat presentable, though simple)", and that's probably a comment of the english translator. An analysis of laundry lists and their position in a biography. +MATIA ☎ 11:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that phrase for now. +MATIA ☎ 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

taking a stand

how did socrates take a stand? Yahussain 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

Not quotes, which are punctuation marks.

The man who knows he knows nothing is smarter than the man who thinks he knows something but actually knows nothing. This appears to be a paraphrase of a lengthy argument in Plato's Apology of Socrates 22c-23c. Anyone wishing to restore it should provide the exact words and a verifiable reference. Larvatus 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

I think there are several places where quotations would improve the article. I have Plato's pieces on Socrates so I will see what I can do. TheTruth12 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of manuscript?

Why was the Arabic manuscript of Socrates erased from the article? If it were not for the Arabs, we would hardly know anything about the Greeks today now would we?--Zereshk 01:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is an interesting representation of Socrates, which shows the breath of his infulence. And again, yes, we tend to focus on the european scholastic tradition when thinking about Plato's commentators, but the Arabic tradition predates this and was responsible for maintaining it. Perhaps it would be more fitting if it was alongside a few lines about his role in the Arabic tradition? Dast 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, does anyone know what it says? Dast 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC Christian My Ass

Google search for "BC Christian" turns up 17,400 results; search for "BC Christian" Socrates turns up only 108, the vast majority of which are incidental. The ones that aren't incidental are either this article or text copied directly from the article. I move that this be deleted. Argyrios 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A Historical" vs "An Historical"

PMAnderson: I believe you have failed to understand the context of my recent revert. I was not changing it for the hell of it; I was changing BACK a very recent previous edit by an unsigned user. I understand you are sensitive to this issue from your user page and that my justification for my revert wasn't correct in your opinion, but surely to apply your rule fairly, the original edit was the one that was in error, not my revert. Argyrios 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The source for "Finding that they knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew that he knew nothing'"' is here: [1] but where is the source for "virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."?(Solomon 44 is a secondary source) Andreas 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

self reference

Meant to link to WP:NSR in edit summary Argyrios 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]