Talk:Socratic problem - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atethnekos (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 9 August 2013 (→Untrue and subjective: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:44, 9 August 2013 by Atethnekos (talk | contribs) (→Untrue and subjective: +)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Philosophy: Ancient Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ancient philosophy

Classical Greece and Rome Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

In the present version of the article, there's way too much on Schleiermacher's view and not really much of anything about other views, particularly more modern views, such as those of Gregory Vlastos and Charles Kahn. Also, something should be said about the view of John Burnet and A.E. Taylor which was prominent at the beginning of the 20th century. Isokrates 21:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think something should also be said for Kierkegaard's interpretation of Socrates. His work On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates seems wholly relevant. --The Prodigal 22:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Popper: Please outline what Popper says about Socrates in TOSAIE. 93.162.99.126 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that advice given in 2006: modern academic conversations in classics about the "Socratic question" are almost entirely based off Vlastos, not the people in this article. I feel like the general problem with a lot of these Plato articles is that there hasn't really been any attention paid by people in who really know their languages or any recent scholarship not done by people with "great names." But again, a lot of the problem is the way the discipline of philosophy likes to think that Plato is "theirs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.223.69 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Untrue and subjective

I rolledback my revert because I realized as was on the wrong end of the revert-discuss cycle.

Anyway, what evidence is there that the claim is untrue or of a subjective pov such that the claim should be excluded? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

one normally looks for evidence that something is true, not that it's untrue; so more to the point, what evidence is there that it isn't untrue? --Wran (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of evidence that it isn't untrue. I believe most editors agree that verification of an on-topic claim in a reliable source without dispute from any other reliable source is enough prima facie ground for inclusion. Why should I have to supply any evidence that it isn't untrue in order to include the claim? If you really want evidence, I think I could give some in the form of any argument that W. J. Prior has had training and a history of research that is sufficient to make him able to have good judgement on the matter and make the claim in accord with this judgement. He is in good-standing in the field with no history of distorting the truth. By all appearances, he is a sincere academic. Academics who are sincere, have no history of distorting the truth, and who are qualified to make a claim, can generally be trusted when they make a claim and present that claim not as an argumentative position but as a matter of fact. By all appearances, he does present the claim as a matter of fact and not as an argumentative position. Therefore, he can be trusted for this claim. If someone can be trusted for a claim, then there is some evidence that the claim is true. Therefore, there is some evidence that this claim is not untrue. -Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So I am thinking about re-adding the sentence. Do you still think it shouldn't be there? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

of course, it's a wildly speculative claim, far from the mainstream and it contradicts the tenor of the preceeding sentence; xenophon for example is often seen as more reliable than plato --Wran (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim doesn't contradict the claim that Xenophon is seen as more reliable than Plato. What evidence is there that it is far from the mainstream or wildly speculative? What is the relevance of it contradicting such tenor? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories: