Talk:Plato

Plato's "Real Name = Aristocles"

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. Waterfield 2023 also refers to the tradition that his supposedly real name was Aristocles as "nonsense" (p. 8). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

The idea that modern scholars no better than all the ancient sources in this respect reeks of hubris. I think the current construction of the sentence concerning Plato's name is highly disingenuous at best. There is far from an academic consensus. Alexbaker1234 (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Era

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)

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 and .

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)

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)

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)

Plato's other occupation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Year of Death (Uncertainty)

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)

Series of footnotes to Plato

"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)

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

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

@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)

@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., ... 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 [] ). 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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

"it's a common misconception that Nietzsche objected to Plato, what he actually was objecting to was socrates"

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)

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)

This journal synopsis of Nietzsche on Plato seems to hit the nail on the head. I think it's safe to say that Nietzsche didn't see Plato as a philosopher, but an excuse for one, which makes sense given that Nietzsche was a famous existentialist, and Plato was basically the opposite in every possible way. It seems that existentialists argue that existence precedes essence, but Plato would argue that the ideal of the forms (essence) precedes existence. Carl.r.larson (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2025

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2025

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

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

"Featherless biped" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Main Image

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 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 a picture of which held in a somewhat dubious quality in Wikimedia Commons .. 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' by the archeologist Stephen G. Miller where he argues that a herm at Berkeley (some pictures publicly available here ) 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 , 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)

Proposing an edit Re: Plato's synopsis of Pythagoreanism

Failing to see where Plato synopsizes Pythagoreanism as "all is number," but that seems to be a mis-understanding, we might want to put "geometry" there instead of "number," because number theory only came after the Pythagoreans, who saw numbers as intrinsically derived from naturally-ocurring geometry from the music of the spheres. This is widely reported and cited. A famously-attributed quote from Pythagoras holds that 'There is geometry in the humming of the strings. There is music in the spacing of the spheres.' This would be the accurate quote to include, to say "all is number" invokes postmodern definitions of number theory that were not available to the ancient Pythagoreans. Indeed they had no concept of "zero" until centuries later. Carl.r.larson (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year Seminar - The Republic Revisited

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 1 September 2026 and 18 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rumbustious (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rumbustious (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Plato's 'Legacy' Section and its barebone nature which needs to be expanded on

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As I read this page, I find Plato's Legacy heading to be severely under-written and not nearly as comprehensive, both in isolation and when we compare it to the pages of individuals of similar repute (i.e Aristotle, which starts from the onset in the Hellenistic and moves to Rome, after an introductory overview), all of which this page lacks, despite Plato having greater influence in those two mentioned time periods, which seems very strange. It also skirted or outright ignored a number of important timelines or developments in the influence of the thought, of self admitted figures who are profoundly infljenced. It jumps immediately to the Islamic Golden Age, which ignores the initial pipeline of how the works reached there. I have written something of a draft below of what I think it should be like (since I am not able to edit it as my account is new).

Summary: The “Legacy” section is much thinner than Plato’s influence warrants. I’ve drafted a chronological expansion from the Hellenistic period to the 20th century, with citations, below. I'd welcome feedback Full draft follows.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmafiadown (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't edit this any more so I can't edit it to make it shorter, but I wrote my proposed change on a sandbox, to make it easier to process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blackmafiadown/sandbox. ignore everything below since I can't seem to delete it Blackmafiadown (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Plato is generally considered one of the most influential thinkers in history.[79][80][81] Alfred North Whitehead wrote that “the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”[82] Bertrand Russell argued that Plato exerted greater influence on subsequent philosophy than Aristotle, on the grounds that Aristotle was himself “an outcome of Plato” and that Christian theology and philosophy, at least until the thirteenth century, “was much more Platonic than Aristotelian.”[83]

Plato's influence has been most persistent in metaphysics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, where Platonism remains one of the major contemporary positions.[84][85][86] Richard Kraut writes that Plato "stands at the head of the Western philosophical tradition," being "the first to write on a wide range of topics still discussed by philosophers today" including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and political theory. As a result, Kraut argues, Plato "may in this sense be said to have invented philosophy as a distinct subject," since although his predecessors discussed these topics, "he was the first to give them a unified treatment."[87] Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “Plato is philosophy, and philosophy, Plato,—at once the glory and the shame of mankind, since neither Saxon nor Roman have availed to add any idea to his categories.”[88]

He was frequently given the epithet the Divine Plato (Divinus Plato) amongst his followers and differing traditions.[89]

Plato's reception has been marked by recurring cycles of revival and contestation.[90][91] What follows is an overview of the transmission and influence of Plato's texts and ideas from the Hellenistic period to the present.

Ancient

Hellenistic Period

In the Hellenistic period, Plato's works remained a central point of reference for Greek-language philosophy. The Stoics, Epicureans, and Academic Sceptics developed their positions in engagement with or opposition to Plato, and the Academy itself continued for nearly three centuries under successors including Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Polemon, retaining its strong influence.[92][93][94]

Proclus reports that Plato's circle encouraged mathematical research, and associates Euclid with the Platonic tradition, crediting him with systemising earlier results by Eudoxus and Theaetetus.[95] Whether or not Euclid himself belonged to the Academy, the mathematical tradition that fed his Elements, including the work of Menaechmus, Eudoxus of Cnidus, and Theaetetus, developed in the environment Plato cultivated.[96]

Roman Republic and Empire

Under Rome, Plato's influence permeated Roman literature, education, philosophical theology, and religious interpretation.[97] Cicero and the later imperial author Apuleius invoked Plato when discussing Roman religious ritual, treating him as a figure of wisdom and using his writings to interpret religious practice philosophically.[98] Apuleius's De Platone et eius dogmate offered a Latin summary of Platonic doctrine for Roman readers.[99] Plato was, for Cicero, the prince among philosophers.[100] Quintilian, one of the chief orators of first-century Rome, described Plato as “inspired not by human genius, but, as it were, by the oracle of Delphi.”[101]

In the Greek East, Plutarch and other Middle Platonists, active from the first century BCE, developed Plato’s dialogues into a more systematic philosophy. Neoplatonism, founded by Plotinus in the third century CE, carried this further into a comprehensive system that became the principal philosophical framework of late antiquity[102][103] and the medium through which Plato's thought entered Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.[104]

Early Christianity

Among early Christian theologians, Plato and the Platonists were often regarded as pagan philosophers whose teachings came closest to Christian truth. Augustine wrote that the Platonists “come nearer to us” than other philosophers (City of God 8.5) and described Plato as “justly preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles” (8.9).[105] Origen ranked Plato “the best of all philosophers, the closest to scriptural doctrines” (Contra Celsum 1.10)[106], and Plato was the non-Christian author whom Origen cited most frequently.[107] Clement of Alexandria likewise showed respect for Plato, whom G. W. Butterworth characterises as an authority “second only to the Scriptures.”[108] The fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers, particularly Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, engaged with Origen’s exegetical writings while adapting elements of the wider Platonic tradition within Christian theology.[109][110]. The late-fifth-century Pseudo-Dionysius, adapting Proclean Neoplatonism, became perhaps the most influential conduit of Platonic ideas into medieval Latin theology.[111]

Medieval

The Byzantine Empire

Plato's influence in the Byzantine Empire was sustained, shaped by the empire's direct access to the Greek dialogues and by the mediation of commentators such as Proclus and Plotinus.[112] Byzantine theologians integrated Platonic concepts; divine transcendence, providence, the Forms as logoi in the divine mind, and the Neoplatonic cycle of procession and return into Orthodox thought, a synthesis central to figures including Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas.[113] This "diffused" Christian Platonism was punctuated by two major revivals: the first under Michael Psellos in the eleventh century, who explicitly identified as a Platonist and deployed his knowledge of the dialogues in the service of Christian teaching; and the second under George Gemistos Plethon in the fifteenth century, whose radical, de-christianised "Hellenism" and critique of Aristotle ignited the Plato–Aristotle controversy and directly influenced the Italian Renaissance.[114][115]

Islamic World

Plato’s influence in the Islamic world was substantial, although it often reached philosophers through summaries, paraphrases, commentaries, and Neoplatonic works rather than complete translations of his dialogues.[116] The Arabic tradition included material associated with the Republic, Timaeus, and Laws, while the Theology of Aristotle, a paraphrase of parts of Plotinus’s Enneads, and the Liber de causis, derived from Proclus, transmitted important Neoplatonic doctrines.[117] Because Aristotle’s Politics apparently did not reach al-Fārābī in Arabic, he drew on Plato’s political philosophy in works such as The Virtuous City and his Summary of Plato’s Laws, adapting Platonic political concepts to an Islamic intellectual context.[118] Averroes later composed a commentary on the Republic.[119] Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas also helped shape Suhrawardī’s Illuminationist philosophy, which developed an original critique of Avicennan Peripateticism.[120]

Medieval Western Europe

Until the mid twelfth century, the only Platonic text available in large part in Latin was Calcidius’s fourth-century translation of the first part of the Timaeus, with a commentary.[121] Henricus Aristippus translated the Meno and Phaedo in the 1150s. Most Platonic doctrine reached the Latin West indirectly, through Augustine, Macrobius, Boethius, and, from the ninth century, Eriugena’s translation of Pseudo-Dionysius.[122][123] Through the twelfth century, Platonic and Neoplatonic traditions remained deeply formative in medieval Latin philosophy and theology, even as Aristotelian texts gained increasing importance. In the formation of scholastic philosophy, the influence of Plato and, above all, Plotinus and the Neoplatonists “counted for at least as much as that of the Stagirite [Aristotle].”[124] Platonism likewise permeated the philosophy of the Church Fathers, the writings of Anselm and Abelard, and the intellectual revival of the twelfth century.[125] In that century, masters associated with Chartres, including Thierry of Chartres, Wiliam of Conches, and Bernard Silvestris, drew on the Timaeus and Calcidius’s commentary to reconcile Plato’s cosmology with Genesis.[126] Scholars describe this as an adaptation of a Neoplatonised tradition rather than a recovery of Plato’s own thought.

From the thirteenth century, newly translated Aristotelian works came to dominate scholastic philosophy, and Aristotle became known simply as “the Philosopher”[127], though Platonism persisted through figures such as Bonaventure and Meister Eckhart.[128] Thomas Aquinas, while drawing primarily on Aristotle, integrated elements of Pseudo-Dionysian Neoplatonism into his theological system.[129]

Modern Era

Early Modern Era

In the fifteenth century, Plato's works became widely accessible in the Latin West for the first time.[130] The Byzantine scholar Gemistos Plethon, whose lectures at the Council of Florence (1438-39) helped stimulate Medici interest in Platonic study, had a lasting effect on this revival.[131][132] The period has been described as one of greater interest in Plato than at any time since antiquity.[133] Aristotelianism nonetheless remained dominant in the universities.[134]

The influence of Platonism on the Scientific Revolution remains a subject of historical debate. Historians such as Alexandre Koyré and E. A. Burtt argued that the new science of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries owed much to a turn from Aristotle's qualitative physics toward a Platonic and Pythagorean view of nature as mathematically structured.[135][136] In a 1597 letter to Galileo, Kepler called Plato and Pythagoras “our true masters.” Other historians emphasise that Galileo and his contemporaries also drew on Aristotelian methods, and they question how far Platonism shaped the new science.[137] In seventeenth-century England, the Cambridge Platonists, including Benjamin Whichcote, Ralph Cudworth, and Henry More, drew on Plato to defend a rational, spiritual form of Christianity against both Calvinist theology and the materialism of Thomas Hobbes.[138]

During the Enlightenment, attitudes towards Plato varied. Voltaire criticised aspects of Platonic philosophy and sometimes portrayed Plato as an eloquent but obscure metaphysician, although his assessments of Plato were not uniformly negative.[139] Plato nevertheless retained prominent admirers among Enlightenment philosophers. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz regarded Plato as the ancient philosopher most congenial to his metaphysics, praising his ethics and arguing that a systematic reconstruction of his philosophy would be of great benefit to humanity.[140]

German Thought

Plato’s reputation recovered in German thought from the late eighteenth century.[141] Moses Mendelssohn’s Phädon and Kant’s discussion of Plato’s Ideas in the Critique of Pure Reason helped renew interest[142][143], and Friedrich Schleiermacher’s translation (from 1804) made the dialogues widely available.[144] Schelling’s early philosophy was deeply influenced by Neoplatonism, particularly its doctrines of the Absolute, intellectual intuition, and the procession and return of beings[145], and he regarded Plato and Spinoza as his chief philosophical masters.[146] Hegel gave Plato extensive treatment in his lectures on the history of philosophy, which were published after his death.[147]

Arthur Schopenhauer credited Plato and Kant with shaping his entire philosophical orientation, and described Plato as “the divine.”[148][149] Friedrich Nietzsche was strongly critical of Platonism. He described Christianity as “Platonism for the people” in the preface to Beyond Good and Evil[150], and in an early unpublished notebook he wrote that his philosophy was an “inverted Platonism”.[151]

19th and 20th Century Mathematics and Science

Platonism became a live position again in the philosophy of mathematics and logic. Gottlob Frege argued that thoughts and numbers belong to a “third realm”, distinct from both the physical world and subjective ideas, a view often compared to Plato’s Forms.[152] In his early work, including The Principles of Mathematics, Bertrand Russell defended a realism about concepts and propositions, and G. E. Moore held a similar view, though Russell later replaced it with a metaphysics of facts.[153] Kurt Gödel was an explicit mathematical Platonist who held that we have a form of intuition of mathematical objects, comparable to sense perception.[154]

Some physicists also invoked Plato. Werner Heisenberg argued that the smallest units of matter are better understood as mathematical forms than as physical objects, and said modern physics had “decided in favor of Plato”.[155] Einstein remarked that a scientist who values logical simplicity might appear as a Platonist or Pythagorean.[156]

Political Reception

Nineteenth-century Romantic thinkers like Coleridge and Shelley drew on Platonic idealism. Shelley described Plato as being “eminently the greatest among the Greek philosophers” and likens his language to "that of an immortal spirit".[157]

Plato’s political thought became a subject of public controversy in the twentieth century, when several writers read the Republic as a precursor of totalitarianism. The most influential was Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), which described Plato as an opponent of the “open society” and argued that his political programme was totalitarian in tendency.[158] Despite this, Karl Popper regarded Plato as the greatest philosopher in history and considered his intellectual achievement without parallel.[159] Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy was also critical of the Republic,[160] and Hans Kelsen had earlier criticised Plato’s conception of justice.[161][162]

Many classical scholars rejected Popper’s reading as anachronistic and as paying too little attention to the dialogue form. Leo Strauss offered a different reading of the Republic, focused on the dramatic and ironic character of Plato’s dialogues and the tension between philosophy and political life.[163] His approach drew partly on his studies of medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, particularly al-Fārābī and Maimonides, and emphasised the possibility of esoteric writing that requires readers to look beyond a text’s surface meaning.[164]. Strauss’s interpretive method has itself been contested.[165]

Continental Philosophy

Several twentieth-century continental philosophers wrote extensively on Plato. Heidegger criticised Plato’s understanding of Being through the eidos, arguing that it privileged presence and contributed to the history of Western metaphysics that he called the “forgetfulness of Being”.[166] Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote on the Philebus, Republic, and Timaeus and treated the Platonic dialogue as a model for hermeneutic understanding.[167] Jacques Derrida examined Plato's texts in "Plato's Pharmacy" and The Post Card.[168]

Blackmafiadown (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't edit this any more so I can't edit it to make it shorter, but I wrote my proposed change on a sandbox, to make it easier to process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blackmafiadown/sandbox Blackmafiadown (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

it's not evidently LLM generated though. the fault I did make however is that I did my citations as links as not footnotes which means the reference are unclear as to where the information is disclosed, which I'll fix. I would like to know the further justification in referring to it as LLM-generated. I have responded to the reasons listed in detail in the contested deletion page of my sandbox link. Blackmafiadown (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

It has lots of clear WP:AISIGNS. You're not doing yourself any favors by dissembling about that. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

can you actually explain what are the AI signs instead of vaguely handwaving. You're not doing me any favours in helping me address it either since you're not giving me anything concrete. The concerns raised by the other person about the tracking data I responded in the talk page. Blackmafiadown (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that you are using AI, and we aren't going to tell you how to hide it. The WP:USED-AI? essay would probably be helpful to you. If you stop using AI, there will not be any AI signs in the text. Just stop using AI on Wikipedia, and you will stop having these problems. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

dude you're not giving me any reasons. how is this allowed? you're making a claim, and you're not matching the actual evidentiary standards to substantiate it. you claimed that my links had a utm_source=m and that my sandbox was 'ostesnsibly' similar to the one here, yet I checked and I sent all 94 links I used in the sandbox and not a single one had such a thing. So your claims aren't matching the evidence. In addition, the page G15 says 'and not take a single example as definitive' yet you based it off the one link supposedly having the M addition. Blackmafiadown (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

There's over 60 links. The English Wikipedia does not accept AI-generated material, it is prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline. Are you saying that you did not use AI? Please read the essay that I linked before you answer. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I did read it. and the most relevant replies which I assume you are referencing are ""What parts of this sound like AI?"

This doesn't answer the question of whether you used AI; whether or not this is your intention, it makes you sound like you are mostly concerned with covering your tracks." or ""You have no proof!" (which are responses higlighted as what not to say)

But I don't see how either apply to this specific case. For the first, that's not at all what I said nor what I meant. I specifically adressed the evidence as higlighted on the talk page as 'supposed' proof of the ai, and demonstrated why I don't think it doesn't fit the claim being made. I did *not* preface by saying 'oh, what specific parts of this do you think is AI?'. And for the second, I never made the claim that anyone had no proof at all. Rather, I specifically asked for further justifications presupposing such a claim would have more evidentiary pillars.

I don't know you haven't adressed none of the links I used in my sandbox containing utm_source=m as you claimed.

As for the question, 'Are you saying you did not use AI?' I thought it was clear from the beginning my entire rebutalls must rest upon the premise that I did not use AI to write the article for me. Blackmafiadown (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I also checked again to see if I was missing something apparently and it turns out none of the 96 links even contain a source=? Blackmafiadown (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not just the links, it is also the writing style. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

There's even more than that. The links aren't even how I found this, that's just what meets the G15 criteria. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BEANS. The answer here is that you should stop using AI, (you can start by rewriting this from scratch in your own words) not that I should point out specific tells so you can use AI more effectively on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

In the Essay the other person sent, it says "Generally, people do not claim that text is AI-generated without a reason—which, ideally, they will have mentioned." The 'reason' has not been mentioned, but since you seem set on the conclusion anyway, it doesn't look like it's going to change.

It also says " you are one of those rare exceptions, you can say so, " but apparently even saying it (I don't believe I am in the bracket of resembling LLM beyond reasonability anyway, but let's say I am) does nothing either so I don't know why they went to mention it in the article. Blackmafiadown (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I already pointed to WP:AISIGNS, which are pervasive in the text, and particularly clear when you compare the AI-generated text to your writing style in the rest of your talk page comments. If you just accept Wikipedia's requirements on this you're not going to get blocked or anything, just don't use AI again in the future.

On the other hand, people who are clearly using AI and who insist on being dishonest about it are assumed to be rejecting Wikipedia's requirements, and they do tend to get blocked in short order. Don't follow that path. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

> I already pointed to WP:AISIGNS, which are pervasive in the text, and particularly clear when you compare the AI-generated text to your writing style in the rest of your talk page comments

i don't see how that latter point supports your thesis. I'm clearly not deliberating much in my language when writing these, i clearly said "dude you're not giving me any reasons. how is this allowed?" in my first couple of responses. I think you should expect when writing an article about a prominent historical figure that takes more time, one's language and tone changes compared to an informal conversation in a talk page.

And yes you did link the aisigns page, but I don't see how that addresses my point? that is a list of signs and a field guide to spot LLM work. the essay explicitly says "Generally, people do not claim that text is AI-generated without a reason—which, ideally, they will have mentioned." saying my writing alligns with what is mentioned on the field guide in a general sense can be considered a reason I guess, but I don't see it a substantial one. we can differ here.

Anyway, another issue (and probably the more pressing) I have which no one is addressed is that the initial person's reason for thinking my stuff was AI was literally factually incorrect. I don't know why it hasn't been adressed. none of the 96 links in the sandbox even contain a source=. there isn't a M. how is that not being factually incorrect

you mentioned "On the other hand, people who are clearly using AI and who insist on being dishonest "

do you think I'm being dishonest in my conduct and what i've said? do you also think I'm 'clearly' using Ai in the page? Blackmafiadown (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

do you think I'm being dishonest in my conduct and what i've said?. Yes. do you also think I'm 'clearly' using Ai in the page?. Yes. MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

okay, so can you also respond to this point too then?

Anyway, another issue (and probably the more pressing) I have which no one is addressed is that the initial person's reason for thinking my stuff was AI was literally factually incorrect. I don't know why it hasn't been adressed. none of the 96 links in the sandbox even contain a source=. there isn't a M. how is that not being factually incorrect

If i am being called dishonest, can I know why this blatantly incorrect statement about the article hasn't been adressed by anyone? since dishonestly is a topic of concern? this was the core reason for why my article was called ai generated, so it's not a minor thing. Blackmafiadown (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

initial person's reason for thinking my stuff was AI was literally factually incorrect. No, it wasn't, and I do not agree that your summary here actually reflects the initial person's reason for thinking my stuff was AI.

can I know why this blatantly incorrect statement about the article hasn't been adressed by anyone?. See WP:SATISFY. No one is obligated to respond to everything you write in the manner you prefer. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

> No, it wasn't, and I do not agree that your summary here actually reflects the initial person's reason for thinking my stuff was AI.

The reason as stated by that individual on my sandbox : 'ostensibly the same text as in Talk:Plato § Plato's 'Legacy' Section and its barebone nature which needs to be expanded on, where 64x links have utm_source parameters with only the value removed, but one of them is utm_source=m. See CSD G15.'

I'm not doing any interpretative claims here, that is explicitly the rationale used. that '64x links' have that, and 1x has the M. That is simply not true. I won't paste it all here because it's needlessly long but none of the 94 links have that source parameter. And none of them, have a source parameter with M. Anyone reading this can simply open the link and check to confirm for themselves. So why don't you think it's clearly false? The person said 'ostensibly' which also isn't true clear;y

> No one is obligated to respond to everything you write in the manner you prefer

What 'manner you prefer' are you talking about? I'm not telling anyone the manner of which to address my comment. I'm simply asking for it to be addressed, since it's EXPLICITLY the rationale cited in thinking the main conclusion that you seem to think, of it being produced by LLM. This isn't a nitpicking or sidenote or something that's irrelevant. It's pertinent to how I'm not being represented correctly in that regard.

I read it, and it says "The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not necessarily mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not."

If someone makes a claim X about my work, and their claim rests upon misinformation Y, then I don't think I'm stepping out of bounds nor am I being argumentative to say wait hold up, X doesn't allign when its a basic case of factual accuracy regarding the main point. I'm also not being demanding at all. I even said 'can I....'. I don't know how anyone can interpret that as a demanding tone. Blackmafiadown (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)