Talk:Meno
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
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 be moved. violet/riga (t) 14:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] requested move
Please debate this move on Category talk:Dialogues of Plato in its full context. Thank you. --Girolamo Savonarola 21:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikified
Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! Minor arrangement and sectioning. JubalHarshaw 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original research in "Subtextual Interpretations" section
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)
[edit] Original research in "Conclusions" section
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 http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/1998/diller.html
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)
[edit] College Paper
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. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abuse
A user from IP adress 69.62.166.142 has repeatedly vandalized this web-page. Maybe someone with a little bit of authority can ban them from modifying it again.
