Talk:Republic (dialogue)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Although represented as a dialogue

Although represented as a dialogue. If looked closely it is actually a monologue. In philosophy a dialogue is an exchange of ideas and/or opinions. The more normal explanation for dialogue meaning conversation between two people is of no interest. In philosophy a dialogue can only have meaning if two hypotheses are compared through discussion. This is however not the case. The character of Socrates does all the philosophy, while the other characters are mainly there to agree with him and to steer the book in the direction Plato wishes it to go.

This is not really true. In the first book, for instance, Thrasymachus does a lot of arguing with Socrates...

Yes, but later in the book...it becomes a monologue..however you are correct.

But it is clear that Thrasymachus isn't arguing in totality an actual position held by anyone else. Plato is the writer who determines what Thrasymachus says, and what he makes Thrasymachus say does not 'do justice' to the fundamental root of Thrasymachus' idea of justice.

Too easily Plato writes that Thrasymachus agrees to this or that unfounded assertion made by Plato's Socrates. So I would tend to agree with the first statement that the dialogue is fictional, and that there is no real dialogue, only Plato. And Plato words things to advance Plato's position on a ruler's right to rule. -- Capone

Any dialogue that is "made" by one author, rather than a record of a discussion, is not "really" a dialogue. So, "dialogue" is necessarily a form, and the Politeia is clearly that. To which extent which of Plato's work is actually dialogical, there is a vast amount of secondary literature; it seems to depend both on Plato's didactical purposes in the given work, as well as on when he wrote it. Clossius 07:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a dialogue in the same sense as Shakespeare. Does anybody go to play and actually think, well this is just the playwright speaking, it's not a dialogue? You have before you in the Republic a drama, of course one author is the author- but where did he get his ideas? Does anyone think every playwright is a creative genius who just comes up with things or does he look and listen and think and distill then write? To imply The Republic is not a dialogue, just a monologue, is to exhibit a poor understanding of art and philosophy.--Mikerussell 00:24, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

The arguments mouthed by Thrasymachus, and later Glaucon strongly resembel the Melian Dialog, and probably a general conception of Justice at the type. Socrates was alive during the Melian genocide, so this is probably not an accident... Because of this, the first few books of the republic is Plato's response to the traditional arguments that held strong sway in Athens at the time. Bigmacd24 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Literary Style

The work is also famous for its literary style: the text is presented as a discussion between Socrates and several other students at a dinner.

- We need much more than this: The Republic is certainally not simply a discussion between Plato and his students.

Disambiguation page

Talk:The Republic moved back to here; The Republic is a disambiguation page now, see also category talk:Dialogues of Plato --Francis Schonken 22:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All very well. Your next step in the process is to open "What links here" at left and correct all those double-redirects that have been created. --Wetman 04:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss and the North American view

I added some conten under "Content" because i think it is a shame that the page is using only Bertrand Russell's limited view of the work. This needs to be remedied, if anybody is a Christian Platonist, they may have some valuable insights to add. I will try to add more where appropriate, respcting the likehood that many people fear or have a trepadation to any author who advocates for Strauss' view. --Mikerussell 00:24, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Admin abuse of power is shameful

some admin must be changing this page and erasing their footprint, they HISTORY page does not have any record besides myself of the editing and i certainly did not revert my earlier edit. this is a serious violation and abuse of power since it denied the democratic ethic and the open source value which marks wikipedia. quite simply, the admin should be outed and stripped of the authority granted him/her.--Mikerussell 16:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Administrators can't do that. Only those with low-level access to the database—i.e., developers—can change article histories. It's more likely that you encountered a technical error, though I'm not sure exactly what the problem is; can you link to the diff of the edit in question? —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it was technical. It seems okay now.--Mikerussell 05:57, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Note: Mirv's statement is not completely correct: Admin's (and any user) can make histories seemingly disappear, in two simple steps: (1) change the name of the article to whatever non-existing article name; (2) copy the content of the article back to the original page name. The history still "exists", but on the other page, which can be hard to find. At that point only an admin can re-unite the original page and it's history (because the original page first has to be deleted, after which a page move bringing over page history can be performed). Further, with some luck, the person that had performed the two steps mentioned above can help the page history disappear completely within 24h: in step one he moves to an article name with an obivious typo, and after step two empties the article and lists it for speedy deletion: if no admin remarks something "irregular" going on, bye-bye page history. There are some guidelines trying to avoid that separation of pages and their history would occur. Regarding the present article, discussion continues on the page name, see Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato. --Francis Schonken 11:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Reception overwhelming content

The Republic is one of the most inspired (if slightly misguided) discussions on several issues in Philosophy. I have read through the article, and I have to say, I am quite vexed at the lack of information about the content, compared to the verbiage wrote about its reception.--Knucmo2 11:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Knucmo2, you might have a look at Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato#Plot_summaries where I used this article on Plato's Republic dialogue as an example of how difficult it can be to make good "content summaries" for article's on Plato's dialogues. So, hereby kindly inviting you to work on the content summary section of the article! I'd be glad to help. --Francis Schonken 09:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I reckon it's easily doable. I have the Everyman edition with a handy intro from Terence Irwin and a summary from A.D Lindsay--Knucmo2 11:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead, seems no problem to me. Maybe first work on the "content summary" section, and in a second step work on the "verbiose" in the "reception history" section. That's only a hint, in order to trigger consensus as much as possible: just proceed like you think best. --Francis Schonken 11:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Treatise on Political Science? Humbug!

Plato's Republic can hardly be called a 'treatise of political science'. It is a work on morality and individual psychology, on personal fullfilment. Just because it proposes an ideal community and delves into political issues does not make it a 'treatise of political science'. Compare with Machiavelli's Il Principe: the books are worlds apart.

Throughout the book Plato is far less interested in politics than morality, goodness and the individual [eg. the tripartite mind]. This accounts for the many 'gaps' which are to be found; if taken as a political work the Republic is simply absurd.

To quote Trevor Saunders: 'To suppose that Plato ever thought that the Republic was attainable would be to suppose him capable not merely of optimism or idealism, but of sheer political naivete' (Plato: The Laws, Penguin Books, 1970, pp. 27,28). Plato's main goal was not to provide a treatise of political science but to provide an analogy or 'an allegory of the individual human spirit'. (Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, iv. Plato, the Man and his Dialogues: Earlier Period Cambridge University Press, 1975, p.561). And as I said, 'a great deal of the book is simply absurd if read as a serious political philosophy' (Waterfield, R., introduction in Republic, Oxford University Press 1993, p. xviii).

So in summary, whereas the book does delve into politics, and thus attempt (however lightly) a sort of political system, it does not take politics serious enough to be called a 'treatise of political science'. Politics are involved, and at times it does seem as though the work is a political treatise (the most famous idea reflecting this must be the 'philosopher kings'), it would definitely not stand its ground as such work, and indeed most political references are to be taken allegorically. That said, Republic does offer instances of political relevance, and indeed has much to offer to political theory, but that does not make the work itself a 'treatise of political science', much less 'the most influential'.

Sapienza 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah well, one may of course call views different from one's own "humbug", but other than name-calling, what is it worth? Really depends on one's definition of Political Science, doesn't it? There are "scientists" around in this field; there are others. There is no consensus on the nature of the Republic (if we really want to call it that), but the defense of its odd-seeming passages by saying it was never meant for politics and had merely the intention described above goes, I think, way off the mark - it is also not communis opinio (certainly not if one looks a bit over the narrow limits of contemporary Anglo-American scholarship on the subject, but even if one doesn't). (Admittedly, there is no opinion on Plato for which one can't find some reference in some persons' books.) The "Republic" is a heuristic utopia that should never be attained in "real life", but it should further insights into how things are related and what can and should be done - in the specifically political world. In addition, to envision Plato, out of all people, not being interested - even mainly - in political matters would mean to really ignore how the ancient Greeks thought; for Plato, the polis was first and foremost (the literati disdain for political matters is a later phenomenon). So, I think it is fair to say that the "Republic" is indeed a treatise on PolSci. Clossius 17:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Oh but I do not call humbug those opinions which differ from my own; I only call humbug those which are complete and utter nonsense and do not have as much as a pinch of veracity in them.
The most basic definition of 'Political Science' I could come up with (with reference to the multitude to be found) was 'the systematic study of government and political processes.' A similar definition is to be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica: 'an academic discipline most generally understood to include the systematic study of government processes by the application of scientific methods of analysis.' The same encyclopedia defines political philosophy as concerning 'the ends or objectives of politics and the way in which political society should be organized in order to realize those ends.' This is what Plato endeavours to establish.
The Knowledge in Depth article goes even further: 'More narrowly and more traditionally, it [political science] has been thought of as the study of the state and of the organs and institutions through which the state functions [...] most students agree that the roots of political science are to be found in the earliest sources of Western thought, especially in the works of Aristotle, who is recognized by many as the founder of political science.' And more to the point, the distinction is made clear in the following comparison quoted from the same article: Political Philosophy 'speculates about the place and order of values, the principles of political obligation (why men should or should not obey political authority), and the nature of such terms as right, justice, and freedom. Political science, on the other hand, seeks to establish by observation (and, if possible by measurement) the existence of uniformities in political behaviour and to draw correct inferences from these data.' (my emphasis: since observation is the method of choice of the political scientist, Plato's Republic cannot fall into such a category since his is an ideal community, which never did, nor will it ever exist. Since it is not real, it cannot be observed.)
Furthermore, the bibliography section starts with a caveat which further proves my point: 'Although works of classical political philosophy are both venerable and extensive, few of them qualify as modern political science because they are neither quantitative nor, in most respects, even empirical in tone and temper.' The bibliography starts with Aristotle's Poltics, and reasonably enough omits Plato's Republic.
As to the idea of the roots of political science dating back to after Plato (in his pupil Aristotle), I can offer the following passage: 'Although Plato has the stronger claim to be the founder of political theory, Aristotle is the founder of political science, the composite sudy of philosophy and politics' (Plato to Nato: Studies in Political Thought, p. 43).
Modern Poltical Science is comparatively speaking quite an innovation (not to be confused with political theory/philosophy). Whereas knowledge of Plato (and his Republic) is quite useful in discussions pertaining to political science, he himself (and his works) is not a political scientist per definitionem. It was Aristotle who first organized political knowledge in a scientia. Plato was more concerned with creating Utopias, ideal communities. This cannot be considered as political science - what Plato offers are paradigms - ie. political theory. Indeed it is Utopian thinkers who borrow most from Plato. In this regard it should be enough to mention two of the most influential (apart from Plato himself): Cicero and Moore's Utopia.
Quoting from the Wikipedia article regarding Political Science: 'During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli established the emphasis of modern political science on direct empirical observation of political institutions and actors. Later, the expansion of the scientific paradigm during the Enlightenment further pushed the study of politics beyond normative determinations.'
With implicit reference to Plato, Machiavelli writes: ' colui che lascia quello che si fa per quello che si dovrebbe fare impara piuttosto la ruina che la perservazione sua ' - in essense that is what Plato offers in his Republic, ie. how one should live one's life: an enquiry into morality.
You say there is no consensus on the nature of the Republic, but then why call it a treatise of political science? (NPOV?)
You have provided much rhetoric but not a single valid argument. You state that it is not commonly accepted (by experts in the field I assume) that Plato's work 'had merely the intention described above'. I challenge you to support that assertion with references. Indeed you make lots of assertions, yet you do not attempt to prove a single one.
And anyway this is not about communis opinio, this is about the intentio auctoris and the intentio operis.
Basically you jump from premise to conclusion. May I ask what happened to the argument?
But let us not digress. This is my argument supporting my claims as stated above:
In 370b Plato introduces the notion that each of us has a single talent and that we must work only at the thing which corresponds to this talent for our entire life. This would be absurd in a treatise on political science, yet it makes sense if it is attributed to the notion that there are distinct mental faculties. In 415c, and indeed throughout the whole of Republic, Plato assumes that the lower classes, the ruled, will consent to being ruled. Even though they are not capable of having reason rule over the other two parts of the mind, they still are able to see that being ruled by philosopher kings, even when this goes against their motivations and interests as ruled by the desirous part of the mind, is good for them. This is contradictory and over-simplistic, as well as 'politically naive' (Waterfield, op. cit., p. 399). Again in 432a Plato partakes in this poltical naivety, where he expects the lower classes to acquiesce in having little control over their own lives. Again this is politically absurd. Plato expects to create a unified community based on a caste system. Any student of politics will point out how this is utterly deficient. Kant would have a thing or two to say about this too (read Über den Gemeinspruch: 'Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die Praxis').
At 472e we find out the extent of Plato's lack of interest in politics. At times, such as here, he rejects the possibility of his community becoming actualized, yet at others (most notably 502c and 540d...) he assumes it could actually beceome reality. Of course if this was a treatise on political science (and not an opus on morality with substantial political theory) this ambiguity would have been removed, for it would have been essential to the coherence of the whole work.
On warfare Plato states that his ideal community should avoid it as much as possible. Yet later on in the book (as in 537a), especially when he talks about the education of the philosopher kings, he says that observing warfare is a very important aspect of the children's education. He argues that children should be sent to see their 'fathers' fight. Of course this would be impossible if the community were to avoid war as much as possible. Indeed this would only make sense if we consider morality (and individual psychology) to be the main subject of discourse.
This evidence leads us to (in Waterfield's words) 'conclude that, as usual in Republic, he [Plato] is less interested in external politics than in psychology.' (Waterfield, op. cit., p. 438).
That is my whole argument. If you still find objections, please reply with an argument of your own proving the contrary, rather than providing us with useless and tedious rhetoric.
In conclusion, whereas the extent to which one may call a work 'political science' is still a vexed question, and although 'the distinctions are unsatisfactory inasmuch as they lack categorical vigour' (Encyclopaedia Britannica), the communis opinio is that in fact Plato's Republic is not a treatise of political science. And it can never be so, for it is also communis opinio that the founder of political science is Plato's pupil, Aristotle. Poltical Science is an empirical study of politics. Plato, at most, is a political philosopher.
Sapienza 14:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


Well, as Paul Natorp once said in a similar situation, although the tone of the message of Sapienza makes a reply superfluous ("rather than providing us with useless and tedious rhetoric" - obviously, my rhethoric, if indeed it was that, was useful :-) -, "I only call humbug those which are complete and utter nonsense and do not have as much as a pinch of veracity in them", etc.), the subject matter is important enough to warrant one.
I would first sum up the argument as follows: The Republic is not about observable and indeed observed facts; Political Science is about observed facts; therefore, the Republic is not Political Science. The argument importantly doesn't say that this is mainstream view, but that this is the only possible view, and that everything else is "complete and utter nonsense and do[es] not have as much as a pinch of veracity in" it.
Now, both in its development and as it looks today, the heavily empirical focus of Political Science as a post-war discipline is indeed an important one; it - the emphasis, not the exclusivity! - is currently the mainstream; and APSA and IPSA members and committee sessions in a majority of cases reflect this view. However, I think that it is fair to say that Political Science, observed over the years and not only in two or three countries, has often been, and has mostly included, the possible move of the "Is" to the "Ought". In other words, Political Philosophy is very much a part of Political Science, and globally, only very few "scientistic" departments have removed it from that field and relegated it to Philosophy (only). Admittedly, there is a serious fight over these issues within the discipline, especially within the paradigm-leading United States - but even there, the fight generally ends factually with a plurality of approaches, not with saying that 'only empiricism matters'. A glance at the APSA annual conventions (see [1]) - APSA is the most "hardline" empirical of the big PolSci professional organizations -, at the main volume about the subject matter (Katznelson, Ira and Helen V. Milner (eds.) (2002). Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Centennial edn. New York: Norton / Washington, DC: APSA) shows that both views dominate jointly. (On the empirical emphasis and its extension to Europe, see also Schmitter, Phillipe (2002). "Seven (Disputable) Theses Concerning the Future of "Transatlanticised" or "Globalised" Political Science." European Political Science 1 (2): 23-40) Functionally, I would say that simple empiricism can never be enough for PolSci; normative thought is absolutely important, and empiricism without normative concepts is empty. Again, it matters little what I think in this context, but the fact is that generally, normative reasoning is seen as a legitimate part pof PolSci itself - which is why graduate departments of PolSci do not get accredited in most countries if there is no professorship in PolPhil and/or Theory.
In sum, the reason the "humbug" statement by Sapienza is wrong is that it claims that Political Philosophy is not part of Political Science, because Political Science is empirical, and PolPhil is not. Yet, communis opinio (which is what matters in wikipedia, not what the author or the work mean or intend, as much as this is ascertainable) is that PolPhil is part of PolSci, and only a (radical) minority says that only empirical research qualifies as PolSci. So, PolPhil is indeed part of PolSci, and the Republic is the first important and comprehensive treaty of PolPhil in providing a heuristic utopia (heuristic! not meant to be realized! "realism" of the system therefore doesn't matter!), one of the most important parts of the development of the polis until today (see Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man, Yale UP 1944; see also indeed Über den Gemeinspruch, in which Kant, in the Introduction, says that a theory is falsified (let's not get into this debate :-) just take it for the moment) if disproven by praxis, but that praxis is emphatically not just doing things, but rather, applied theory). Therefore, the statement that the Republic is the first larger treatise on PolSci, and one of the most important ones, is absolutely legitimate. Therefore, to call that statement "humbug" is just name-calling.
To conclude, Sapienza calls my support of the claim that point that the Republic is a significant treatise on PolSci "complete and utter nonsense and do[es] not have as much as a pinch of veracity in" it. I do not say the same about his arguments in the second message at all. Clearly, Sapienza knows his Plato and his Republic (and were it not anti-wiki, I would also say that, if he did indeed reveal his identity in the references to the first message, he has provided us with a fine comtemporary translation of it). I would also agree with him that Aristotle's Politika, and of course Machiavelli (if less the Principe), are much more important to what Political Science is today - in scope, content, and method -, than Plato, even if one includes his much more "realistic" and indeed to some large degree empirical work, the Nomoi. His view that Plato is, in the Politeia, more interested in psychology (or education) than in politics is a legitimate, traditional argument which I do not think valid (and with me a plethora of scholars), but which can of course be made (I only think that the intention is not really what matters in our context, but rather the effect, and the effect is largely PolPhil).
But all this doesn't make the view that the Republic is the first important treatise on PolSci wrong, let alone absurd. It is a real pity that these points couldn't have been brought out by normal scholarly discourse, but that all was started by calling a legitimate position, "humbug". Clossius

POV comments deleted about "the Greek text"

I edited out the following line:

Others divisions of The Republic are somewhat amateurish as they do not take into account the Greek text.

Whoever wrote it exhibits poor judgment. Amateurish is a term not applicable to Bertrand Russell or Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom. Certainly Strauss and Bloom read ancient Greek, Bloom translated a popular edition of The Republic. The person may have a personal preference for their view, and they are more than encouraged to present it (as they have) for it is a respectable and valid interpretation, but it is just that- a Francis Cornford, Kurt Hildebrandt and Eric Voegelin interpretation. Making a reader believe that the view is the only true or correct version, or ‘breakdown’ of the text- and justifying it by some strange assumption about needing to know ancient Greek is preposterous. It is stepping beyond a balanced view, and violates NPOV aim. Did the author ever think their ‘professional’ view strikes others as just as amateur? --Mikerussell 05:19, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Plus, I would just imagine what Plato would have thought of the "professional/amateur" division in such a context. :-) Anyway, knowing Greek is a conditio sine qua non, not a special qualification in this context. The line was certainly not NPOV. Clossius 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Edited definition of Justice

I changed the line: Justice is defined as a state where everyone is to do their own work while not interfering with the work of others.

to : "Justice is defined as working at the role which you are best suited for and not interfering in the work of others."


I also changed the quote in the next paragraph from 433b-c which read "minding one's own business" to more accurately reflect the text as "to do one's own business and not to be a busybody." I added the additional quote that starts of 433, that gives a broader picture of the definition of justice in the Dialogue.

I thought the way it was written previously, did not give the complete picture, and could be misinterpreted to be identical to modern liberterian ideals.

Inappropriate paragraph

This was inserted a while ago:

From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself. The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom. The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic.

Which I deleted. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. First it is POV. Who says Bloom's translation is the most faithful/best? Also, I don't think DVD lectures belong in this article anymore than my Philosophy 101 class notes do. It just is too far removed from Plato's writing, and probably has far too many competitors.

If you want to include information about translations, which would be great, it should not be in the introductory section, but below under a translations subsection, like it is for anyother work of literature.

It does not matter if you are not associated with The Teaching Company, it's still an advertisement. Also, it is inappropriate to talk about yourself in an encyclopedia article. --24.124.84.133 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I attempted a compromise. You rejected it. I will therefore make it one of my missions in life to make sure the above paragraph stays in the article.

The user above is right. This has no place in an encyclopedia...it is shameless self-advertising. If you want to include references, do so in a reference section at the end of the article. --Carl.bundersonCarl.bunderson 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggested compromise for 71.118.32.15

I have two basic problems with this paragraph, that it is point of view, and that the information is in the wrong place. Also (and this isn't as important as the other two) it is a poorly structured paragraph.

First, this clearly in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. The actual language of the policy is "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias". If you disagree with this policy, then you should look to other projects (like Everything2) that allow personal opinion, or even Amazon's user reviews. Wikipedia is simply not here to allow everyone to spout off.

Second, this paragraph doesn't belong in the article's lead section. As the Lead section article states, this space should be fairly short and contain only essential information necessary for understanding the topic. That means no peripheral information, such as translations and study aids--see, for example, the Bible article. this information, if it is included at all, should appear in the main body of the article, below the table of contents. Translations are usually the last (or close to last) section in an article. A good rule of thumb for a literature article is that it should be chronological--this article starts with a very brief description of the work and its author, then goes into a more in depth examination of the work, then chronologically explores the influence the work has had. After this could be information about translations. A translations section should have a neutral discussion(e.g., no phrases like "most faithful"), and should have references for anything that may be construed as personal opinion. It cannot simply be about Bloom's translation, even if you do provide references and describe it neutrally. A good section on translations is always a great addition to an article on a work of literature.

The DVD lectures is a different matter, and I think do not belong to be in this article at all. First, I think that most "serious students" will not get a few DVDs, but will go to the library and check out serious academic studies of the work. These DVDs sound (and you have provided no information on them) things that lazy professors use for their undergrad classes. Maybe it provides the in depth exegis that a book can provide, but we don't really find out from your paragraph. If the DVD lecture stays in the article (and it must be discussed neutrally), then it should probably be only a brief mention in a section on academic studies, and any of The Teaching Company's competitors should also be (briefly) mentioned. I really think that DVD study aids do not belong here at all, but if you're "not going to surrender", then at least introduce the topic in a way consistent with Wikipedia's editorial policies.

My last (and compared to the above, irrelevant) complaint is that the paragraph is poorly written. Fixing this will do nothing to change our mind's about this paragraph, but I figured I'd mention it anyway.

"From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself." Of course an encyclopedia article is not a substitute for a thorough study of any work of literature. This is so obvious that it treats the reader as if he/she is stupid, which should always be avoided. Anyone who tried to use this article in place of actually reading the text would probably use Cliffs Notes or something. Besides, it is not our job to down play our own articles, it is the job of the reader to use them responsibly.

"The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom." This has nothing to do with the previous sentence, or the following sentence, and so clearly does not belong in the same paragraph.

"The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic." This is more related to the first sentence, and should probably follow it. The paragraph does not flow because of this middle sentence.

Also, you wrote a whole paragraph with no links to other articles. Allan Bloom, and The Teaching Company both have articles that (were this paragraph acceptable) should be linked to. A case could also be made for linking DVD.

The compromise that I am suggesting is that, if you want the information in your paragraph to be included, that you should take the time to integrate into the article with a neutral point of view, in appropriate locations in the article, in a manner that is well written and and not condescending to the reader.

If you continue to behave like a spoiled child this will probably head to arbitration and your IP could be blocked from editing articles. --24.124.84.133 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone missed the comment in history, this person's response was: "I categorically reject your analysis as false and itself biased." It is time to get this IP banned. --24.124.84.133 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I am putting in a request for comment about the following paragraph that continues to be inserted by 71.118.32.15. The paragraph is:

"''From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself. The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom. The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic."

In the two sections appearing above this one I have outlined the reasons why I (and others) are deleting this paragraph. Essentially, it does not have a neutral point of view, does not belong in the lead space, and reads like an Amazon.com user review of a product.

The anonymous user has responded above and in his edit summaries with comments like "I categorically reject your analysis as false and itself biased" and "I attempted a compromise. You rejected it. I will therefore make it one of my missions in life to make sure the above paragraph stays in the article." The compromise he talks about was more neutral, but still misplaced and completely lacked content.

I do not suspect that the user will listen to the results of this request for comment, but I figured I'd start here before moving on to more severe tactics.--24.124.84.133 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph at issue. I categorically reject your analysis as false, vacuous, and itself biased.

I'll help out, saw the RfC, i'll keep this on my watchlist. If you'd like to categorically reject these people's analysis' mr. anon person, please describe how, because your breaking the 3RR rule several times over it looks like. Homestarmy 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, none of that paragraph belongs in the intro. The admonition that there is no substitute for studying the Republic itself might be fine later in the article. The endorsement of Bloom's translation as "most faithful" is POV, and the recommendation of the DVD by The Teaching Company is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia to promote a commercial product. --HK 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My paragraph is entirely appropriate. In accord with Plato himself, I reject your implicit relativism. That is, there is a best translation, and Bloom's is it. Any other view is in error. I suggest both Bloom's translation and the DVD lectures solely to point the reader towards the Form of the Good, again completely consistent with Plato. The study of Plato is not to be merely an academic exercise, but primarily about the right way to live. I choose not to betray Plato and philosophy. Why must you? Swallow your pride and allow this article to direct its readers towards the Good, the Beautiful, and the excellent. 71.118.32.15

I only wish your argument was valid, then I could tell everyone who isnt a Christian "The Bible's view is correct, now gain eternal life through faith in Christ!" and everyone would be saved. Sadly, this is not the case, Biblical evangelism rather can be far more complicated and has no perfect chance of success. Put your paragraph in the article with some citations that prove the consensus view is that this person's works are authoritative and widely accepted on the subject without the advertising and "Any serious scholar..." comment, and that'll at least be a step in the right direction. Homestarmy 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look on any other Wikipedia page. You will not find paragraphs similar to the one listed above, and there is a reason for that: Wikipedia does not make recommendations or admonitions. It doesn't matter whether or not Bloom's translation is the best - it is not Wikipedia's place to make that sort of judgement. It likewise does not matter whether or not any article can acceptably capture Plato's arguments. It is not Wikipedia's place to give readers advice. Readers can be encouraged to read Plato by adding the text in a "Further reading" section at the end, but endorsements beyond that are unacceptable. -Seth Mahoney 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to hear a longer-than-two-sentence response from you, Mr. 71.118.32.15. As has been pointed out, Wikipedia articles are to conform to Wikipedia's editorial policies, not Plato's philosophy. If you don't like this, then you should find another resource whose policies you can agree with, or start your own, say Platepedia. Simply put, you do not own this article, and you cannot do whatever you want to it.
I made several suggestions on how to improve the article and incorporate your ideas as well, while adhearing to Wikipedia's policies. You have not responded to anything, except to accuse me of depriving readers of the good, the beautiful, and your oh so "excelent suggestions". You have still not explained why your paragraph is written from a neutral point of view, or belongs in the lead space. I suspect that the reason why you are ignoring my suggestions is that you are either too lazy, too proud to "surrender", or are simply a troll. I don't think you're lazy or a troll, since you did go through the whole article and made several positive changes, which are appreciated by all. You simply need to realize that you do not own this article, that the policies that govern Wikipedia are not on the side of this paragraph, and that you are the only one who feels it belongs article as is.
And while this is not important for the discussion, you are hardly acting in accordance with Plato (or at least Plato's Socrates). First, in the Apology, Socrates responds fully to each allegation. You merely "categorically reject" them. Second, while Plato was not a relatavist, he was no dogmatist, and never demanded others accept his views, and always provided justification. Also, Socrates did not try to circumvent the will of the community, as you are.
Either put in the work to incorporate this paragraph's information in a well written manner consistent with Wikipedia's editorial policies, or quit inserting the paragraph in violation of the policies.
If this paragraph continues to be inserted by this user, I am going to request arbitration, as mediation is clearly not going to be successful. I am kind of new to this whole conflict thing, so if there is anyone who is more experienced who would like to spearhead this then feel free to. --24.124.84.133 23:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I reject all of your implicit assumptions, along with all of the platitudinous methodology that either you or Wikipedia espouse. Wikipedia is far, far from a scholarly resource. Its content is supplied by amateurs, and I'll take no part in spreading any false impression that it is not. Your pose of objectivity is entirely transparent. I reject it completely. It is I, not you, who values truth. I'll never surrender. This post is merely the beginning of my organization's wholesale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia.

You do realize you've just made almost a terroristic thread to Wikipedia? That's like worth a super ultra indef ban i'd think, and definently won't make us stop reverting you. Plus, im a novice, your generalization isn't correct :D Homestarmy 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I (previously 24.124.84.133) am going to initiate a request for arbitration. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration in 10 minutes or so to leave input. --Kentaur 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we just add our names to involved parties or what? Homestarmy 02:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. I don't even know if I followed correct procedure; I just want this over with. I guess it can't hurt, and since you have contributed to the discussion I'd call you an involved party. Thanks --Kentaur 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
My dear Platonist...surely you must agree that taking an immutable stance in a forum you profess to despise is hardly doing "your organization" or Plato's legacy any favors? Anonymity and brief, non-specific dismissals of argument are not exactly Platonic. 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from outsider Fred-Chess

Hello. My impression as outsider.

  1. "The best edition is"
    I don't mind mentioning this if it is essential, but I'd prefer having it in the reference section. If this edition is truly considered the superior edition by most scholars, then mention it.
  2. From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself
    is silly. It is POV. We don't begin Wikipedia articles like that and there are many articles that could begin like that.
  3. "The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic."
    It is unnecessary. This is not a study guide, it is a Wikipedia article.

That's my 50 cents. I'm not knowledgeable in the subject; only responding to the RfC

Fred-Chess 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have put in a request for arbitration concerning our anonymous philosopher. You can view it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Kentaur 03:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also reported this user for 3RR. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR --Kentaur 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon. However, I very much doubt that the the RFA listing was appropriate - this is just not serious enough, yet. William M. Connolley 11:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
More on that: you put up an RFC *yesterday* and you create an RFA *today*? Please don't. I strongly suggest you remove the RFA asap and give the RFC some time. Also, please link directly to the RFC from here. William M. Connolley 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
Sorry if I didn't do everything right. First time and all. I just figured that once the conversation hits "This post is merely the beginning of my organization's wholesale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia.", I figure that the RfC is probably going nowhere, and that Wikipedia's Organized Whole Sale Assault policy (I imagine one exists) has been violated. I don't mean this sarcastically--I'm still trying to learn--but if a declaration of war isn't enough for a RfA, what is? Also, it's hardly the kind of shock and awe campaign this user promised, he/she has recently (before being blocked) inserted POV into other articles [2]. --Kentaur 17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that the RfA has been removed. Sorry if I jumped the gun, I just remember when I first stumbled upon Wikipedia I inserted a test edit where I shouldn't have, and the fury of the administrators was terrible. I was surprised that this user could continue on for more than a week. --Kentaur 17:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Title

As a matter of interest, why is this called "Republic (dialogue)," and not "Plato's Republic"? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think because the title of the work has never been "Plato's Republic". It is usually considered just "Republic" by Plato. Kind of like Homer's Odyssey's article's title is just Odyssesy, despite there being other similarly titled works. --Kentaur 17:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's usually called The Republic or Plato's Republic. Republic (dialogue) seems an odd choice. I didn't even realize what it was when I first glanced at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see why this may not be the best choice. Matters are complicated by the fact that Cicero also wrote De re publica, now usually called "Republic" or "The Republic", and to top it off, Cicero's work is also a dialogue. I don't think that Plato's Republic is a good choice, and it redirects here anyway. Maybe we should have The Republic redirected to The Republic (disambiguation) and this page redirected to The Republic, since 95% of people who look for The Republic are looking for this article. Kind of like how The Odyssey is handled. --Kentaur 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean move this page to "The Republic"? If so, I'd agree with that, then just add a disambiguation sentence at the top directing readers to The Republic (disambiguation), which we'll create by moving the current The Republic there. Is that what you meant? Any objections from anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It can't hurt. Homestarmy 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. I don't see it as a pressing issue, but I don't think users should have to hunt through a disambiguation page if they search for "The Republic". --Kentaur 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and do it then. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)