Talk:Socrates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Socrates article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. The following comments have been left for this page: needs references plange 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (edit)

WikiProject Echo has identified Socrates as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core	This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within classical antiquity.

	Socrates is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

(Content moved to talk:Trial of Socrates)

Archives Archive 1

Contents 1 resources on socrates 2 Excessive? 3 Wikipedia 911 4 Atheism...? 5 Dying words & debt 6 Accuracy in regards to the trial 6.1 Original research

[edit] resources on socrates

you only mention Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes as resources on Socrates, but Aristotle also wrote about him. Aristotle never wrote book about him but he mentions Socrates a lot in his works. i think Aristotle should be mentioned as resource because in his works you can find some info on Socrates that is not written anywhere else. --L 0 0 P 00:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but since he's a little later, and didn't know Socrates, he's not as valuable a source. But he should be mentioned, perhaps in a 'later sources' section. Dast 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive?

I've noticed that this article often mentions Socrates attraction to young men. I know this is partially true but I have a concern with the line:

'"Socrates says he slipped out of the battle of Potidaea in order to return to Athens to check out the handsome young men"'

And its source. Anyone agree? Zhang Guo Lao 08:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the phrase 'slipped out of battle' is especially excessive since it implies desertion, which was a serious crime. The (mis)source is probably the beginning of the Charmides: Socrates has come back after the battle of Potidaea has finished and inquires 'about the present state of philosophy and about the young men, whether there were any who had become distinguished for wisdom or beauty or both' (153d). Beauty was highly valued in Athens, so Socrates interest is of very little note, and wouldn't bring to mind anything sexual if he did not soon after become inflamed by the young Charmides' beauty (and promptly control himself, illustrating the dialogue's theme of temperance). So, the sentence is extremely misleading; I'll take it out. Dast 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It gets worse. The whole section reads: 'In the Symposium Alcibiades says that Socrates retreated from Delium with the General Laches, and in the Charmides, Socrates says he slipped out of the battle of Potidaea in order to return to Athens to check out the handsome young men.[1] Victor Davis Hanson, a professor of classics, describes Socrates' fighting at Delium, as a disastrous loss for the Athenians in 424 B.C.' What!? I can find no explanation for this; Socrates is always portrayed as exceptionally brave in battle and I know of no source that questions this. In the Laches, for example, Laches actually says that 'he marched with me in the retreat from Delium, and I can tell you that if the rest had been willing to behave like him, our city would be safe and we would not have suffered a disaster of that kind.' (181b) (ushering in the dialogues' theme: courage). And in the Symposium Alcibiades extolls Socrates' valour in battle (both at Potidaea (219e ff.) and Delium (221a ff.)) and how he saved his life. For Victor Hanson's sake, I hope he has been misinterpreted. I'm taking the whole section out, since it is simply mistaken. Dast 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a plainclothes professional to figure out this is vandalism.Matthew 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 911

I'm getting all sorts of backlash for my contributions for this article, most of which are intended to bring it up to snuff. Ridiculous claims that Socrates made a conscious attempt to emulate the occupation of his mother, which he did not. It is outright silly to suggest- although he may have saw in the occupation of the midwife (that is someone who helps bring forth something, someone who aids in the process of birth) something akin to his dialectic approach, by no means did Socrates make a conscious choice "to follow in his mother's footsteps" the very suggestion of which is fallacious, considering Athens' aggressive patriarchy.

And how can you say with any degree of professionalism that Socrates advocates the military communism as set forth in The Republic? By that time, Plato was using Socrates as a mere mouthpiece of his own ideas and philosophy. One might as well claim that Socrates was a sophist and biologist who studies the reasons why flies fart because Aristophanes portrays him as such. Any person with a sense of history would acknowledge that this whole section ought to be deleted, with some rational, well-cited paragraphs on the possibilities of Socrates' own philosophical ideas.

I also think it is hardly judicious to delete the edits of mine which refine some of the historical claims. In summary, the article ought to be revised back to the point of my edits, and things should be built upon (historically, professionally, and most important, reasonably) from there. Matthew 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the backlash? I don't find it here or on your user page. It appears that your edits have remained in the article. Nposs 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A number of my revisions have been swept away (look at the most recent version as compared with my last edit), for reasons I'm not certain of. But if you compare the two versions, you can certainly see it. If I did, I didn't mean that there was any sort of personal attack. I simply wish to create a more robust article, and it appears as if its not being effective. Matthew 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of vandalism since your last round of editing. Is it possible your edits were inadvertantly removed while editors (such as myself) were reverting these edits? If so, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to simply put your edits back in. Nposs

Ah, alright, I'll put them back in, tomorrow morning. At the moment, I have to watch The Colbert Report (its not really that amusing, but it has its moments). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Across.The.Synapse (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

You need to learn how to watch Colbert and edit at the same time. That way you can get started on his recommended edits before everyone else (like "Black Future Month"). Nposs 04:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I getting this right - Colbert has a regular WP edit recommendation (like the elephants thing)? And why is this section called Wikipedia 911?--Shtove 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he makes wikipedia jokes on a irregular basis, mostly because subverting wikipedia can be funny (for more on this, see Uncyclopedia.

As far as my title goes, I guess in hindsight it really wasn't that urgent, but I was getting flustered with the person (Brenda, I think) who took out all my contributions to write historically invalid things. I even submitted a notice to the wikipedia advocacy group, even though the whole thing has resolved itself quite smoothly. Matthew 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Matthew/Across the Synapse, your edits were reverted by User:Brenda maverick. Here's the diff: [1]. I'm reverting back to your version, because I believe it more accurately reflects scholarship on Plato and Socrates. However, the article really needs to be based even more closely on secondary scholarship, and it needs to cite that scholarship through inline references. (See Pericles and Alcibiades for examples of articles that do this.)

By the way, it's very confusing if your signature is different from your username. For awhile I wasn't connecting "Matthew" and "Across.The.Synapse" at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-reverting. As I said, I plan to update this article specifically, as soon as I finish the two books which are on my hitlist: Socrates by WKC Guthrie (currently reading) and Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher (next on my book list). I'll consider changing my signature, but I just like the idea of referring to my name as I contribute. Matthew 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism...?

I think its amusing (don't you?) that this page is incorporated in the Atheism project, considering what we know about Socrates' faith in the Delphic Oracle, not to mention the Assembly's spurious accusations of offense against the state religion. That is all. Matthew 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty non-mainstream to say Socrates was an atheist. Anyone who's read Socrates's description in Copleston's History of Philosophy would reconsider. This is not to say Copleston has his biases, however! FranksValli 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

and not to mention his devotion to his inner daemon --Leopabe 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

He writes in his book, Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth, that "Socrates seems to have a very personalized and intense relationship with the Supreme Being. His very personality is built on the pattern of the messengers of God." -ummmwhat?

[edit] Dying words & debt

Shortly before dying, Socrates spoke his last words to Crito saying, "Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt." The significance of Socrates' last words is not exactly known.

I seem to recall reading a book suggesting this was evidence that Socrates was in poor health at the time (Asclepius being the god of healing) and welcomed death as release from the pain of some unspecified illness. Unfortunately, I don't remember the source. — Xaonon (Talk) 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Xenophon, who doesn't mention Socrates' last words, talks of Socrates' being glad to be freed of old age (he was about 70, so it wouldn't be surprising if he had a few ailments), perhaps that is what your thinking of? As to his purported last words, interpretations abound: he was being freed from the disease of bodily life (since the Phaedo presented a picture of the immortal soul tied to a body full of base desires); he was helping Plato, who was said to absent because of illness; or since he says 'we' owe a cock to Asclepius, perhaps the whole company have been cured of something, such as ignorance. Its very hard to decide, but interesting to speculate about. Ultimately, though, I don't think the article should represent any particular interpretation. Dast 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy in regards to the trial

There are numerous inconsistencies between the account of the trial of Socrates in this article and the main article on that topic. This article downplays his opposition to democracy and fails to mention the actions of some of his disciples in the dictatorship of the thirty. These are all discussed as major causes in the main article on Socrates' trial. This article says rather that he was condemned for being a social and moral critic. This, however, is, from what I have read, not the case. If Athens condemned social critics it would not have been the refuge for philosophers it was. Finally some of the language such as, "In any case Socrates was a man who, willingly or not, pays for the sins of his society with his own blood," seems biased. Regardless of whether or not this is true this is not an editorial page and the way this is said hardly meets a neutral point of view. CuttingEdge 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your right, the account of the trial here is pretty poor. However, Trial of Socrates is probably not the best place for inspiration: that his accusers were concerned with Socrates' supposedly anti-democratic stance and his association with some dubious characters is a theory. It's a pretty good one, but it is not in the texts: what Socrates is charged with is introducing new gods/atheism and corrupting the young. As to Athens as a liberal environment for philosophers, with enlightenment comes counter-enlightenment and many people wanted to stop these new philosophers and sophists. A law was even passed, during Socrates' lifetime, banning 'atheism and theorising about the sky' (the latter being, basically, natural philosophy). I think it is best if the various theories about the cause of the condemnation of Socrates are left to Trial of Socrates - here should be the very basic historical account. Definitely we should get rid of "In any case Socrates was a man who, willingly or not, pays for the sins of his society with his own blood". Besides being sentimental, it seems like its trying to make an analogy with Jesus, which is a little too much. Dast 09:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well it looks like we ought to change both the account on this page and the main page on Trial of Socrates, however, i probably will not start till next weekend because i need to acquire more sources than i have on me. As for the anti-democracy issue i do not know. The only major work i have read on socrates is I.F. Stone's Trial of Socrates in which he definately supports such a view, however i definately will check that with other sources before inserting his views into the article. As for the free speech issue in athens i think you definately aren't giving the city the credit it deserves. I have not heard of the law you speak of but are u sure it wasn't made under one of the dictatorships or under the first few years of the new democracy? The freedom of athenian theater and in the assembly, as well as on the streets was one of athens most cherished ideals. Of course Socrates trial was a blemish on that, but that only emphasizes how subversive they must found him and how shaken they were by the overthrow of democracy. CuttingEdge 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    I suggest getting some copies of Plato's work on Socrates.  That would be his closest disciple and is believed to be the some of the best evidence we have of Socrate's

I'd say the claims in Trial of Socrates are fine, so long as they are represented as theories. As I said, they are good theories. As to Socrates being anti-democratic, see the Crito: he seems certainly prepared to at least put up with democracy here. But, certainly, there is a debate about his position on democracy and again it is fine, I think, if this is represented in the article as a theory (with the other side being represented as well). I'll try find a reference for that law; I think its mentioned in Walter Burkert's Greek Religion and I'd also imagine Dodd's deals with it in one of the last chapters of Greeks and the Irrational. But I'll find a more exact reference. But Athen's was, when compared to its neighbours, a pretty liberal place - but I think we should be cautious about seeing Athen's as liberal in the modern sense. Dast 10:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Burkert is CH. VII sec. 2 (p. 316): "But about 438 (?) one Diopeithes, a seer, was able to carry through a novel decree of far-reaching consequences: one should 'denounce those who do not believe in divine beings or teach doctrines about the sky'" He mentions how it was directed against Anaxagoras. Dast 10:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should present both sides to the issue of whether socrates was for or against democracy and to what degree he was so, but we should not do it by using the platonic diologues or other primary sources. Rather we should use modern scholarship that has already taken into account the biases of these sources. Therefore the Crito is insufficient to support that side without modern scholarship. This, i believe, is, to a lesser extent, a problem throughout this article, as much of it reflects plato's portrayal of socrates which is definitely partisan. CuttingEdge 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But, for the most part, modern scholarship on Socrates' trial is just people interpreting Plato's dialogues. Other than this there is Xenophon and some very very scanty mentions of his trial elsewhere. Anyway, as a general principle, I think we should always rely on the primary sources first. As to Plato's partisan account: he is generally - no, almost completely - taken to be the more accurate testimony of Socrates' life. Certainly we should consider Xenophon and incorporate his account, but his work on Socrates' is tiny compared to Plato's so it doesn't add a great deal, certainly not with regard to details of his life. Dast 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Dast is right in saying that modern scholarship on the trial is based in large part on Plato's dialogues, but the article still needs to be based on secondary scholarship. If editors simply present their own interpretation of Plato, that's original research, which is a no-no. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the Crito is insufficient to cite as support for any position on socrates. CuttingEdge 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken: on issues in Plato's work that are controversial, and only on such issues, we should default to secondary research. A fair point. But with respect to Socrates' trial, some facts, which can be found in Plato, are far from controversial (that Socrates had a trial, was accused of corrupting the young and introducing new gods, etc.) but most of the issues that arise in the secondary literature are controversial - naturally since the research that has been done on it is essentially asking questions that can only have speculative answers, such as whether Socrates association with Alcibiades, Critias, and such people was related to his condemnation. My point is only that in this article we stick to the simple facts first and only cautiously mention the speculative issues that arise in the secondary literature. Dast 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)