Talk:Plato

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plato article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 years

	Plato was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 28, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Physics: Biographies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Mathematics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale. Polyhedra This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polyhedra, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of polygons, polyhedra, and other polytopes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolyhedraWikipedia:WikiProject PolyhedraTemplate:WikiProject PolyhedraPolyhedra ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Epistemology / Ethics / Social and political / Ancient High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Aesthetics Metaphysics Epistemology Ethics Social and political philosophy Ancient philosophy Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia'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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Theology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article as it currently stands reads

Plato (or Platon) was a pen name derived, apparently, from the nickname given to him by his wrestling coach – allegedly a reference to his physical broadness. According to Alexander of Miletus quoted by Diogenes of Sinope his actual name was Aristocles, son of Ariston, of the deme Collytus (Collytus being a district of Athens).

I find two issues with this.

Firstly, the citation for Plato's "real name" being Aristocles is not Diogenes of Sinope, the Cynic philosopher. Diogenes the Cynic was a younger contemporary of Plato and as a result could not possibly have quoted the work of Alexander Polyhistor, who lived over three centuries later (flourished in the 1st Century BC). Rather the quotation of Alexander comes from Diogenes Laertius (Vitae Philosophorum III. 4) who wrote in the 3rd century AD.

Secondly—and this is the main point of this suggested edit—the line "Plato was a pen name ... [for] Aristocles" is presented as brute fact, when it is has been hotly debated by Plato scholars for over a century. Notopoulos 1939 (cited with approval by Tarán 1984 p. 75 and Nails 2002 p. 243) argued against the notion that Plato was a pseudonym for Aristocles.^[1][2][3] Waterfield 2023 also refers to the tradition that his supposedly real name was Aristocles as "nonsense" (p. 8).^[4] The main consideration which tells against this tradition is this.

There are examples of nicknames being given to certain individuals in Ancient Greece. The orator Demosthenes was called Βάταλος, "stammerer"; the poet Dionysius was called Χαλχοῦς, "golden". Perhaps most famously the poet Teisias was nicknamed Stesichorus (Στησίχορος), the name by which we often refer to him, on account of being the first to set up choruses (στῆσαι, χόρος). However, in these cases we find absolutely no parallel for these names in the prosopographia—inscriptions of names for common, ordinary people—which has survived. They seem to be well and truly "one-off" nicknames for those particular individuals. That is not the same for the name Πλάτων, of which we have over fifty parallels in the name lists in Athens and throughout the Greek world, including at least two which predate Plato. That is highly suggestive that Πλάτων was not a nickname particular to Plato but simply a regular Athenian personal name given at birth. We even know of another Plato, a comic poet, contemporaneous with the philosopher, and have some preserved fragments of his.

Finally, Aelian (Varia Historia IV. 9-13) preserves a story that Plato was once talking to some strangers in Olympia and introduced himself only as "Plato". Later, they came to visit him in Athens and asked him to introduce them to the famous Plato, the philosopher. At this point he revealed that he was the famous Plato they wanted to meet. Now, that story can only make sense if Plato was a common name, or at least if the name "Plato" would not have uniquely picked out our Plato. This dovetails back to the point about the fifty or so propsopographic parallels: the tradition that "Plato" was really a pen-name for Aristocles is tied up in stories about how the name "Plato" was linked to characteristics peculiar to him (broad shoulders from wrestling, or broad style). However, are we then meant to think that the other fifty Plato-s which we know of also had the same broad shoulders or writing style? If not, why were they called Πλάτων. The obvious answer is that there is no reason for their being called Πλάτων just as there is no reason for our Plato being called Πλάτων. That was just a common name.

What most likely happened was later authors, based on the strong Athenian tradition of naming male children after their grandfathers, decided that Plato's real name was Aristocles, the name of his grandfather. In their eagerness they ignored the fact that traditionally the papponym was given to the eldest son and that Plato was actually the youngest (his older brothers being Glaucon and Adeimantus). Interestingly, the story that his name was given to him by a wrestling coach called Ariston probably represents the garbled truth. Plato's name was given to him by an Ariston, but not a wrestling coach who saw how wide his shoulders were, but by his own father, Ariston.

I think it would better reflect the position of Plato scholars to modify the language around the report of the Aristocles-name. Something to the effect of "Alexander Polyhistor, quoted by Diogenes Laertius, claims that Plato's real name was Aristocles, the name of his grandfather, and that "Plato" was a nickname given to him on account of his broad shoulders, but the truth of this report has been disputed by scholars".

Scifiphichipsi (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have added the info to the section on his name. I propose removing Aristocles from the lede. cagliost (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the section, and will soon update the lede if there are no objections.

One recent source which believes that Plato was not his original name is David Sedley: "Plato's Cratylus". Sedley makes a strange argument. He accepts or assumes that the philosopher was born Aristocles. However he dismisses the explanations of Diogenes' sources, that the name sounded like "Platos" so had something to do with breadth. He offers a new explanation, the influence of Cratylus, that "Cratylus was someone who was liable to tell you that your given name was not your real name." Sedley offers no further evidence. cagliost (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about WP:PROPORTION. Shouldn't this be just a sentence in the "Biography" section with a footnote to preserve the research currently displayed in "Name"? Or could it at least be moved down in the article in a way that complies with the MOS?

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. We are going in to a lot of detail to refute the Aristocles story because of historical inertia: it is such a widespread story that it needs to be at least mentioned, even if only to be refuted. That said, we do need to be pretty confident that the current academic consensus is that the Aristocles story is false. Sedley disagrees, although he rejects the historical reasons and provides his own novel reason, with no evidence whatsoever apart from his own gut feeling, as far as I can see. Julia Annas in her popular "Plato: A Very Short Introduction" (OUP) says Plato was "probably" called Plato, which isn't an emphatic rejection of the Aristocles story. Debra Nails wholeheartedly endorses Notopoulos. Leonardo Tarán endorses Notopoulos, and also references A. Riginos: "Platonica. The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato" (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 3 [Leiden 1976]) 35-38, who also endorses Notopoulos.

So the "Plato" side all seem to originate from Notopoulos, but we only have Sedley on the "Aristocles" side. Anyone else? cagliost (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent objections, I plan to relocate the "Name" material somewhere less conspicuous in the article. If there was genuine confusion about how to refer to him, placing this at the beginning would make sense. In this case, however, we have literally over two millennia of scholarship consistently referring to him as "Plato". Whether this was a given name or a nickname is in no way related to the philosophical accomplishments for which he is famous and that make his work still an active topic of ongoing scholarly conversation.

(Also, I'm guessing we're losing a lot of readers by beginning the body with three solid paragraphs that name-check the authors of four ancient sources and two recent sources, all of which will be completely foreign to most visitors.)

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten about this, obviously, but did just now make the edit. It could be cut back further, but I erred on the side of preserving sourced material. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut back further, I don't think it's worth preserving Sedley as the lone dissenter, there's always somebody. also cut down on a few namechecks Psychastes (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Happy to see you improving the article! Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did wish to piggyback on here briefly and ask if perhaps we should include some section discussing the general notion of where “Plato” comes from. Regardless of whether it was his given name or not, we do have ancient sources stating it was a nickname. Again, whether that is true or not is up to scholars to decide. However, I think a brief mention of the widely published ideas,such as it being due to his broad back or, more recently, his large forehead is important.

Even if it is stated that “much debate exists over the authenticity, and modern scholarship generally believes Plato was his given name, however ancient sources XYZ do state the reason for the name is XYZ,” it would help address a common belief. Many people have heard that “it’s a nickname because of his broad back,” and having no mention of this in the article seems strange. I propose a short addition to his Life section to include these anecdotes.

I am happy to draft it, but I feel there are many people here more qualified than I. Besides, I’m sure there is plenty of room for discussion on this topic. Finnders2207 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking this because, although it is the right call for this article, it is something I raised at the same time on the Aristotle article talk, and folks should not be expected to have the exact same conversation on the same issue in multiple places.

My bad, sorry to you all, sincere apologies, and best regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current academic norm in philosophy, as elsewhere, is use BCE/CE rather than BC/AD. The article should be changed to reflect the practice of these high-quality sources. For instance, just online, see both[1] and [2].

Also, it is contextually inappropriate to place ancient figures on a timeline expressed in the language of a religion that did not yet exist.

More generally, although Wikipedia policy is agnostic on this decision, it makes sense to use non-exclusionary language when possible.

Further discussion can be found here. I am also placing a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking sources that happen to use BCE/CE rather than BC/AD does not equate to a "current academic norm", but even if BCE/CE were the academic norm, this does not translate to a valid reason to employ them on Wikipedia. We do not have a guideline specifically encouraging the use of euphemisms that may be considered academic norms, but we do have a guideline WP:COMMONNAME which prefers using terminology most commonly used, as determined by "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". BC/AD are commonly used, and arguably are more generally understood by the population at large; this Ngram data shows BC/AD as more prevalent. The are also the terms that arose organically as part of the slow, cumulative development of the year numbering system of the Julian and Gregorian calendars, whereas BCE/CE were created specifically as an alternative to the pre-existing organic terms because of Before Christ/Anno Domini's perceived religious offensiveness; Wikipedia is not censored for terms deemeed to be "offensive" to religious sensibilities or otherwise. Also, saying that it is "contextually inappropriate to place ancient figures on a timeline expressed in the language of a religion that did not yet exist" is no more a convincing argument than saying we shouldn't write the article using Modern English since it "didn't exist yet", or even BCE/CE since they didn't exist yet either. It is no more "contextually inappropriate" to use BC/AD on Plato as it would be to use Wednesday (a term meaning Woden's Day) or January (a term meaning month of Janus), terms that are also "in the language of a religion". English Wikipedia uses various standards such as Modern English, Arabic numerals, and the Gregorian calendar (which employs BC/AD as part of its year numbering system); there is no more "exclusion" in using BC/AD than there is using any other Western, English-language standard. In terms of a desire to not use "non-exclusionary language", I would argue that "Common Era" is more exclusionary than Anno Domini because it makes an explicit POV declaration that the Christian-derived Gregorian calendar year numbering system should be the "Common" era, to the exclusion of all others, rather than BC/AD which are simply the Gregorian calendar's organically-determined English-language demarcation terms tied directly to the objective reason for which the era begins 2,023 years ago. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This argument against using BCE/CE instead of BC/AD is flawed for several reasons:

Misrepresentation of Academic Norms

The claim that citing sources using BCE/CE is "cherry-picking" ignores the fact that BCE/CE is the prevailing standard in academic disciplines like history, archaeology, and philosophy. Many scholarly publications and institutions prefer BCE/CE for its neutrality, and dismissing this as merely a preference without counter-evidence is misleading.

Misunderstanding of Wikipedia Policy

While Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME, this applies to naming conventions, not necessarily to the choice of dating systems when neutrality is at stake. Wikipedia also upholds WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View), and BCE/CE is a neutral alternative that does not impose religious connotations.

False Equivalence with Language Evolution

The analogy that rejecting BC/AD because Christianity didn’t exist yet is equivalent to rejecting Modern English for discussing Plato is incorrect. Language evolves naturally, but BC/AD explicitly ties history to Christian theology, whereas modern English does not impose a religious worldview. BCE/CE allows for historical discussions without bias.

Misunderstanding of Exclusionary Language

The claim that "Common Era" is more exclusionary than "Anno Domini" is unfounded. "Anno Domini" explicitly means "In the Year of Our Lord," embedding Christian theology into a dating system used worldwide. BCE/CE simply removes religious connotations while keeping the same calendar, making it more inclusive for non-Christian audiences.

Artificial vs. Organic Change

The argument that BCE/CE is an "artificial" change ignores the fact that BC/AD was also imposed artificially through papal authority and European colonial influence. BCE/CE corrects for religious bias in a widely used system without altering the calendar itself.

Appeal to Popularity Is Not a Justification

Arguing that BC/AD is more commonly understood does not mean it should be used in an academic or encyclopedic context. Popular usage does not dictate scholarly accuracy or neutrality—if it did, many technical or precise terms would be replaced with colloquial ones.

This argument against BCE/CE is flawed because it misrepresents academic consensus, misunderstands Wikipedia policies, relies on false analogies, and appeals to popularity rather than accuracy. The shift to BCE/CE is not about "censorship" or avoiding "offense"—it is about ensuring neutral, inclusive, and academically sound historical writing. Maxisfaded (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @William M. Connolley, I would like to ask why you have removed the mention of Plato's other occupation as an athlete in the lead. Even after adding a citation to my claim, you removed it under the edit summary of "re-rm the athlete silliness". I don't exactly see what's so "silly" about my edit, so I don't understand your justification for removing it. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in about this on the talk page. However, I support the decision not to include this in the lead. Even though it is true, it is not what Plato is known for. (See WP:LEAD.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Thank you for explaining this to me. I'll refrain from re-adding the occupation to the lead in that case. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plato was not a professional athlete, and perhaps never even competed in major games. Waterfield states, "Plato was said to be good at wrestling, though the anecdotal tradition goes too far when it claims that he competed in the panhellenic games and was even an Olympic victor." (Waterfield, Chapter 1.) cagliost (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea he was a wrestler probably originates from the likely-false story that "Plato" was a nickname given to him by his wrestling coach. cagliost (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that Plato died in 348 BC, but historical sources are not unanimous on this. Many reputable sources, including the Oxford Classical Dictionary, note that his death is generally placed around 348 or 347 BC, and some ancient accounts suggest alternative ages, leading to further uncertainty. Given this, the current phrasing makes the date seem more definitive than it is.

I propose adjusting the wording to ‘348 or 347 BC’ or including a brief note acknowledging the uncertainty. Thoughts? Anaximenes of Miletus (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"British philosopher Alfred N. Whitehead is often misquoted of uttering the famous saying of 'All of Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato.'"

Whitehead's remark is duly cited in the lead and not a misquote in its original form. The sentence should be removed. 2601:642:4F84:1590:9D9A:D9D8:D93A:6635 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Remsense ‥ 论 20:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference regarding the meaning of the original quote by Whitehead the following might be of use [3]. A.Cython (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython I meant to reply to this: in your opinion, would you prefer it be excluded from the lead? If we have reliably sourced and fairly mainstream reasons to view e.g. a famous quotation as didactically poor, surely we aren't wedded to placing it so prominently? Remsense 🌈 论 15:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Remsense Thank you for asking. I did not want to jump on the train as several other editors were actively working (mostly reducing) on the article, but felt compelled to add it here just in case this is helpful. I trust that the other editors have a better idea than me on how the article should look like. But as you may have guessed, I found some edits problematic, e.g., [4]... I think Popper's comments about Plato are rather significant since philosophers to this day still try to refute the central argument, but still comes back again and again. This means that Popper's and Whitehead's comments while from a perspective controversial (so need to carefully stated), I think they are essential in the narrative of how Plato's work echoed to philosophers through centuries whether in a positive way or in a negative way (Castoriadis has an interesting analysis in his book [[5]] ). Unfortunately, I do not have the time (as I need to go through the sources to read or re-read them carefully) and I am entangled on other articles at the moment to contribute in any meaningful way here. So please you and other editors do what you think it is best for the article. If my comments are helpful use them otherwise ignore them. A.Cython (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful to have on the record in any case, thank you very much! Remsense 🌈 论 21:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychastes @Patrick Welsh, I feel it might be possible to make use of—get this—an explanatory footnote with a sentence or two's context around Whitehead's remark. Too much of a POV push? Too cute? Remsense 🌈 论 02:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing, but probably not a good idea in the lead. Also, I read the endnote linked above the Cambridge Companion, and I find it an unnecessary clarification. It would never occur to me to take so literally what is obviously just a witticism. If there's a real danger of this, however, that would be a good reason to just remove the quotation. (Otherwise I'm a weak keep.)

Oh, and @A.Cython, as for Popper, he is discussed at Republic_(Plato)#Popper, where it is more appropriate. Oddly, his own article mentions Plato only in the last sentence, supported by two sources, saying that Popper's readings of Plato and Hegel have been criticized by scholars. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I get it on a gut level, but I don't quite know explicit reasons why we should avoid footnotes in the lead specifically. If it would also appear in the body, it can of course use the same name and lead to the same place, but other than than I'm unaware of specifics. Remsense 🌈 论 19:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's an actual guideline, but my rationale for avoiding them is that the lead is supposed to be maximally accessible to a general audience, and so requiring an explanatory footnote is at least a good indication that a claim should instead be rewritten or else moved into the body. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree on all points, though this seems like a boundary case where something highly prominent would also very much benefit from having elaboration attached that obviously cannot also afford to go into the lead. Given length and not conceptual complexity is the resource the footnote is being employed to contain, it seems like the least problematic such a use could be if it were ever a good idea. Sometimes the first page of a book's introduction has a footnote, right?

I'm not particularly attached to the idea, though. Remsense 🌈 论 19:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's just my own rule of thumb. What is it you would have the footnote say? I can't imagine I'd have particularly strong views either way. If no one else weighs in, I'd just go ahead rely on your editorial judgment. The stakes here are quite low. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to hew closely to an attributed quote of Kraut, something like:

In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."^[a]

Gee, I know I proclaimed this would be simple, but we do have nested and redacted quotations. I really do think this is something that should be made imminent for new readers encountering Plato or the Whitehead remark for the first time in the lead. Otherwise it seems acutely misleading, unavoidable we're suggesting he did say exactly what Kraut explains he did not. Remsense 🌈 论 20:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source or thesis that Nietzsche 'actually' objected to Socrates and supposedly not to Plato? And how is this Socrates-Plato distinction supposed to be made? --Nicehan35 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Walter Kaufmann talks about this in his Nietzsche commentaries and in Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. As far as the Socrates-Plato distinction, you're right that's it's hard to make, but fortunately we only need to worry about what *Nietzsche* thought the distinction was to know what Nietzsche thought. And in general we shouldn't be citing primary sources for these sorts of things, but Nietzsche is an especially difficult case since he loves exaggerating and contradicting himself. But somebody like Kaufmann (or any more recent Nietzsche scholars, really) who is familiar with the entire body of N's life and work is in a much better position to make those sorts of broad claims, and that's what we should cite. Psychastes (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Neoclides to Neocleides in the mathematics section and change the link AragornOfKebroyd (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request: Add "Ethics" to the "Main Intrests" section 69.126.146.141 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ApexParagon (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Featherless biped has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 30 § Featherless biped until a consensus is reached. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to propose considering an image change for this article.

I apologise beforehand if this has been discussed before, I did a quick search of past talks and did not find any evidence; if I am wrong, please feel free to ignore this.

Currently, the image used is not terribly bad. It only has one immediate defect: it is missing the nose. The bust is described in its Wikimedia Commons page as a I CE copy of the original statue by the sculptor Silanion for the Academy (Italian description). Silanion's statue is special, as it is the only one of the philosopher that was done during his lifetime. However, the source [6] for the claim that the statue at the Musei Capitolini is a copy of Silanion's original does not, as far, as I can tell, attest this. Thus, whatever legitimacy the image might have on these grounds seems weakened, and it lacks a nose (which I consider a defect).

In my search for Plato's nose, I came across another I CE bust held at the Fitzwilliam Museum of Cambridge [7] a picture of which held in a somewhat dubious quality in Wikimedia Commons [8].. This bust does have a largely intact nose and might be a good candidate on its own for an image replacement.

Searching for discussion of the above bust I came accross the book 'The Berkeley Plato' [9] by the archeologist Stephen G. Miller where he argues that a herm at Berkeley (some pictures publicly available here [10]) is a II CE depiction of Plato closer to descriptions we have of him (p.35-6). Moreover, he argues that this is a copy of the Silanion original mentioned above, though this point has been flagged as contentious by reviewers (see [11], for example). This bust has a nose.

I propose to change the current image for either one of the Cambridge Plato or one of the Berkeley Plato. Seeing how establishing connection to the Silanion official is controversial, the Cambridge Plato might be a more conservative choice, given its common features with other non-allegorical depictions of the philosopher. Nonetheless, both options have (I think) a clear advantage over the current one: the have a nose (my insistence is potentially comedic) and they are dated around the same period. If this proposoal is supported enough, I am willing to find high quality versions of either uploadable to Wikimedia Commons for use in this page. ~2025-39618-98 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]