Talk:Phaedo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] India
If Alexander brought Greek ideas to India, this says nothing about previous commerce between the two cultures. Socrates' ideas about karma and reincarnation are not characteristically Greek, and these are the ideas at issue. The Hindu myth about Lord Krishna being born a prince, threatened by his uncle, raised by peasants, and returning to claim his birthright is a motif that Herodotus (Book One) uses to give the background of Cyrus the Conqueror (600's BCE). Research about ancient cultural commerce between Greece and India is still in progress. The chair at Berkely classics dept. is working on a book on it.
The Hindu ideas should be taken out. I don't know if a person from India wrote that part, but it is clear that Alexander the Great's conquest brought Greek ideas TO India, not the other way around. Besides, Alexander the Great wasn't even born when Socrates died. As it is, chariots existed in both ancient Greece and India, so the metaphors could simply be coincidence.
[edit] Reorganize?
I don't have any problems with the content of this article. However, the main section of the article, "Detailed Summary", could perhaps benefit from some subdivisions. This might be accomplished by providing a background section, a section that deals with the beginning of the text before the arguments begin, a section of the cyclical argument, a section on the recollection argument, a section on the affinity argument, and then a section on his final argument. These divisions already exist within the text and subtitles that draw attention to them may make the article more user friendly. Robitussin 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Early/middle/late?
As I understand it, scholars have classified the dialogues of Plato into early, middle and late works; and have tried with limited success to determine the order he wrote them in. Where in the chronology of Plato's authorship does this work exist? RJFJR 16:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
From school days, I remember this as being near the divide between the early and middle periods, but don't quote me on that.--Andymussell 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- My philosophy professor at university placed as the first work of the middle period, so that it follows Meno and precedes Republic. Carl.bunderson 00:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Do we really need an expert editing of this page now? It seems in order to me.-- 08:29, 9 July 2006 (BST)
- It is categorized in the middle period as some scholars see it more as a philosophical textbook or guidebook rather than a historical account of Socrates. Scholars see Plato using Socrates as a mouthpiece for his philosophy in the middle and late periods. The backing of this argument is that in the construction of the dialogue itself. The parts concerning Socrates is in Phaedo's dialogue with Echecrates. We find out early that Plato himself was absent from the meeting, and there is a small break in Phaedo's discourse from Echecrates that can be seen as a device to (1) remind us it is a philosophical work and (2) let us contemplate the counter-arguments to Socrates Theory of the Soul after he had discussed the argument from affinity. Rec Specz 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh, this information comes from the introduction in the Hackett book. Rec Specz
[edit] Topic of dialogue
- The problem with the entry is that the bulk of the Phaedo deals with the theory of forms and the immortality of the soul is a secondary argument. The theory of the forms is most clearly described in the Phaedo, better so than even in the Republic. --P Funk 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
Almost total rewrite of this article Nov 10Brenda maverick 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC), 2006.
[edit] Include narrative/summary of arguments?
This seems like a thorough article, except for the fact that it does not include any narrative, or any chronological order of the arguments as the appear in the text. I was thinking that would be helpful and maybe all of these specific topics discussed in the dialogue (which make up the entire entry) could come after a general overview of the work. Thoughts? Jhawk1024 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Theory of forms
>> Hi, in this article I saw there was a reference to the "doctrine of the forms" without any link, but I've just found another article right here on Wikipedia that explains that doctrine, referring to it as "theory of forms"; I only edited that. (Marko - November 23, 2006)
[edit] Original research in "Sub-textual interpretation" section
The idiosyncratic claim that Plato was concerned about "karma" and other Indic ideas requires citations. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
