From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please see Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato for further discussion. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 11:22, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 14:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Aestethics: how about deleting/pausing the animated gif file? it's disturbing and annoying, things like that should never be on a wikipage: which is why ads would more than half the # of users on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

requested move[edit]

Please debate this move on Category talk:Dialogues of Plato in its full context. Thank you. --Girolamo Savonarola 21:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! Minor arrangement and sectioning. JubalHarshaw 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research in "Subtextual Interpretations" section[edit]

This section appears to contain original research. If these are widely held opinions, please supply some citations to secondary literature; otherwise, I think the material should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research in "Conclusions" section[edit]

The "Conclusions" section advances an interpretation of the dialogue that isn't backed up by secondary sources. Either citations ought to be supplied, or the section should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The lack of a real discussion of "narkao" is glaring. "stupification" is a watered-down version of that, I think. "struck by the torpedofish" is a bit more illustrative, and important to understanding the text. Cf. Annie Diller

The last paragraph of the 'conclusion' (except for the last couple of sentences) contains a broadly accurate summary of the final part of the Meno. This has become a bit mixed up with interpretations of the the significance of the dialogue. These interpretations do reflect standard readings, though of course citations are needed. I'll find some myself when I have time. Gregory Vlastos, I seem to recall, writes about Socrates' model of knowledge as geometrical for instance.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

College Paper[edit]

To me, this whole article reads like someone's paper for a college class. Frankly, I think the author of this missed the point Plato (through Socrates) was making. I'm not sure Socrates really believed that knowledge came from the Gods -- in fact, I think he was making a point. The man was killed for corrupting the youth, after all, and he definitely did not have any good things to say about the gods (it is very likely he didn't believe in them at all). I have a ton of nitpicks with the whole thing. One of them is the use of the term "True Beliefs" -- I believe the more accurate translation is "Right Opinion". Anyway, I wouldn't know where to start in cleaning this up. Ikilled007 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is substantially original research. I've watchlisted it, and I might try to clean it up when I get time. ausa کui × 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that both the article contains original research and right opinion would be a better translation, the issue (somewhat unrelated to the article) about Socrates and the gods requires further inquiry. In the Apology, Socrates says that he indeed believes in at least one god, leading some to believe that he was in fact a monotheist. In Euthyphro he does desire to be rid of the stories of the gods, and the argument that he did not believe in all the Greek gods is certainly valid. But it would be a stretch to say he was an atheist. And also, he was sentenced to death for charges, one of them being corrupting the youth, but at least in Plato's mind this was an utter fabrication by angry Sophists and politicians and artisans to rid themselves of Plato and his "gadfly" behavior.Timjim7 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the point here about God, the relevant sentence from the Meno, complete with ironies and ambiguities, has replaced the more emphatic 'college paper' conjecture. The article would benefit from additional sources outside of the Meno itself to put some of the text into context.--Ethicoaestheticist 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


A user from IP adress has repeatedly vandalized this web-page. Maybe someone with a little bit of authority can ban them from modifying it again.

Caption not consistent with graphic in section "Dialogue with Meno's slave"[edit]

The pic (Square within a square in section "Dialogue with Meno's slave") has a *blue* square in a white one. The caption says "The blue square is twice the size of the original yellow square"! Could someone change the caption to be consistent with the graphic?

I *think* it should say "The white square is twice the size of the original blue square" -- double-check this before changing! ;-) Gloucks (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the white square is twice the size of the blue square, but that's not relevant to the problem in the dialogue. The problem in the text is to start with the square which is yellow in our diagram (two feet on a side) and find one which is twice that size: the blue square. The white square is four times the size of the original yellow square, which is what the slave incorrectly thinks is double the yellow square. Tb (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the main text, which uses horizontal and vertical ambiguously. Here's an extract from the dialogue with a diagram: [1] My head hurts, which rather disproves Socrates' intention. It's supposed to be simple! As Groucho Marx said, "A five year old could solve this...Quick, somebody find a five year old."--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The reader of the dialogue (unlike the slaveboy) is expected to already know his geometry, and thus understand what the diagram is as it is described. The slaveboy has a diagram being drawn for him, and Socrates can point at parts as he asks about them. Tb (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


When was it written? -- (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No one really knows the accurate date. However based on their style the so called middle dialogues (of which this is one) are thought to be written around 380-360 BC.--Dblk (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)