Keepcalmandchill (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
→Cynics etc.: misinterpretation of source |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:::::::No, not [[WP:CIRCULAR]]. That's about using other Wikipedia articles as sources. What I'm pointing out is that our own articles that expand on these philosophies contain outside sourced authoritative content that contradicts the content you are adding. My repeated concern is that erroneous information is being added, and this is most certainly not irrelevant. While of course you do not have time to edit everything, it would seem that at minimum editors should be familiar with the content of the articles to which they are linking and to ensure that the high-level summary they are creating is consistent with the details of the article they are linking to. The introduction of an inconsistent claim indicates that there is a problem in one or both of the articles that needs to be addressed. Preferably, an editor who is editing a high-level summary page ought to have enough interest and expertise in the subject matter to also be able to contribute to more-detailed pages. The Hellenistic philosophies are complex systems of thought. They are difficult to summarize even at the main article level. Without a thorough working knowledge of the subject matter, summarizing summaries found in books that attempt to summarize the history of philosophy presents many opportunities for misinterpretation.[[User:Teishin|Teishin]] ([[User talk:Teishin|talk]]) 13:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::No, not [[WP:CIRCULAR]]. That's about using other Wikipedia articles as sources. What I'm pointing out is that our own articles that expand on these philosophies contain outside sourced authoritative content that contradicts the content you are adding. My repeated concern is that erroneous information is being added, and this is most certainly not irrelevant. While of course you do not have time to edit everything, it would seem that at minimum editors should be familiar with the content of the articles to which they are linking and to ensure that the high-level summary they are creating is consistent with the details of the article they are linking to. The introduction of an inconsistent claim indicates that there is a problem in one or both of the articles that needs to be addressed. Preferably, an editor who is editing a high-level summary page ought to have enough interest and expertise in the subject matter to also be able to contribute to more-detailed pages. The Hellenistic philosophies are complex systems of thought. They are difficult to summarize even at the main article level. Without a thorough working knowledge of the subject matter, summarizing summaries found in books that attempt to summarize the history of philosophy presents many opportunities for misinterpretation.[[User:Teishin|Teishin]] ([[User talk:Teishin|talk]]) 13:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::So you are saying the source is wrong and that Wikipedia should override it? [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC) |
::::::::So you are saying the source is wrong and that Wikipedia should override it? [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: No, I am saying that you're misinterpreting the source. The source appears to be giving a rather hurried and breezy introduction to the subject by latching onto some thematic concepts to create narrative and is not to be taken literally that ataraxia, which is a technical term in Hellenistic philosophy, was an objective of the Cynics.[[User:Teishin|Teishin]] ([[User talk:Teishin|talk]]) 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Sophists == |
== Sophists == |
Revision as of 21:34, 17 November 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cynics etc.
Keepcalmandchill Would you care to discuss here your edits which depart from the status quo ante and which I have continuously needed to revert? Teishin (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you revert, then you are the one who should explain why, as per WP:REVERT Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did explain why. Besides, you are the one who repositioned the article from what it had been. Teishin (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your explanation is that the Cynics were in the wrong section. I have rectified this by changing the section names, even though you have not actually provided any source saying the Cynics are Classical period. The classification of the Cynics, the Skeptics, the Stoics and the Epicureans as the 'main schools' of the period is supported by two books written by philosophy professors. Furthermore, they also share fundamental features (also sourced) which is why they should be in the same section so that these similarities can be discussed in one place. The remaining schools can be divided into the new sections I have added, one for less significant pre-existing schools, and one for the religiously motivated ones, which together cover all. Otherwise I can just delete them since none are properly cited. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you need a "source" to explain to you that while Socrates' student Plato, and Plato's student Aristotle, are in the Classical period, but you question that Socrates' student Antisthenes and the later Cynic Diogenes, who famously met Alexander the Great -- whose death marks the terminus of the Classical period -- are not in the Classical period, you do not know enough about this subject matter to edit it. Teishin (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The 'Classical period' is so-called due to its significance, and hence covers the trifecta of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and not other, less-significant contemporary thinkers. But I still accommodated you by changing the sections so that they do not imply that Cynics are not Classical. So what is the problem? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Classical period refers to a period. It is not so-called due to its significance but due to the time period. If it wasn't due to the time period it would have another name. Teishin (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said, it just does not matter. My modifications to the article would make this a non-issue here. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Classical period refers to a period. It is not so-called due to its significance but due to the time period. If it wasn't due to the time period it would have another name. Teishin (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The 'Classical period' is so-called due to its significance, and hence covers the trifecta of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and not other, less-significant contemporary thinkers. But I still accommodated you by changing the sections so that they do not imply that Cynics are not Classical. So what is the problem? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you need a "source" to explain to you that while Socrates' student Plato, and Plato's student Aristotle, are in the Classical period, but you question that Socrates' student Antisthenes and the later Cynic Diogenes, who famously met Alexander the Great -- whose death marks the terminus of the Classical period -- are not in the Classical period, you do not know enough about this subject matter to edit it. Teishin (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your explanation is that the Cynics were in the wrong section. I have rectified this by changing the section names, even though you have not actually provided any source saying the Cynics are Classical period. The classification of the Cynics, the Skeptics, the Stoics and the Epicureans as the 'main schools' of the period is supported by two books written by philosophy professors. Furthermore, they also share fundamental features (also sourced) which is why they should be in the same section so that these similarities can be discussed in one place. The remaining schools can be divided into the new sections I have added, one for less significant pre-existing schools, and one for the religiously motivated ones, which together cover all. Otherwise I can just delete them since none are properly cited. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did explain why. Besides, you are the one who repositioned the article from what it had been. Teishin (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- By "main schools" what the source means is that during this period of time these schools have sizable numbers of adherents. Such a comment no more means that Christianity is modern because it has more adherents than it had in late antiquity. Teishin (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think those two sources say that, since there is no mention of followership anywhere near that section in either. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- What, then, do you think "main" means? Teishin (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Grayling doesn't say 'main', he says 'notable'. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- What, then, do you think "notable" means?Teishin (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That it had great influence? Does the word 'notable' mean 'big' to you? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- See my original point. Substitute "notable" for "main." It makes no difference. Teishin (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. Notability is about influence, not size. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- See my original point. Substitute "notable" for "main." It makes no difference. Teishin (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That it had great influence? Does the word 'notable' mean 'big' to you? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- What, then, do you think "notable" means?Teishin (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Grayling doesn't say 'main', he says 'notable'. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- What, then, do you think "main" means? Teishin (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think those two sources say that, since there is no mention of followership anywhere near that section in either. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- By "main schools" what the source means is that during this period of time these schools have sizable numbers of adherents. Such a comment no more means that Christianity is modern because it has more adherents than it had in late antiquity. Teishin (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm gonna suggest the same compromise as in Western philosophy: Cynic thinkers that flourished before Aristotle's death go under the pre-Hellenistic section, while a discussion about the tenets of the school in relation to the other ones goes in the main section. I also think that separating the religious schools makes sense, as does referring to the other ones as 'main schools' (as they currently are) and including a discussion about their shared themes, but am willing to listen to reasons why that shouldn't be. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- A separation of schools as "religious" would be contentious. Stoicism and Epicureanism, for example, have extensive theologies (see for example the discussion of these in 'De Natura Deorum'). Similarly, a classification of "main" opens up potentially contentious and subjective classifications.Teishin (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, but is the rest of the suggestion acceptable to you? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the Pre-Hellenistic section the section on the Cynics needs to be revised to make it more stylistically compatible with the other schools. There's also some inaccuracy about ataraxia in the existing copy. Platonism also should be included. Teishin (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Right, but I assume it will be okay to cover Cynics in the main section as well in comparison with the other schools. But I will do this later when I'll add more material on those other schools to the article. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to cover the Cynics in the main section, why not go back to the way the article was structured prior to your first changes on 8 July 2020? Teishin (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fine by me, I did not add the 'pre-Hellenistic' section, that was you. I am fine by just having each school of thougght given its own section from the get go. Keepcalmandchill (talk)
- If you want to cover the Cynics in the main section, why not go back to the way the article was structured prior to your first changes on 8 July 2020? Teishin (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Right, but I assume it will be okay to cover Cynics in the main section as well in comparison with the other schools. But I will do this later when I'll add more material on those other schools to the article. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the Pre-Hellenistic section the section on the Cynics needs to be revised to make it more stylistically compatible with the other schools. There's also some inaccuracy about ataraxia in the existing copy. Platonism also should be included. Teishin (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, but is the rest of the suggestion acceptable to you? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- A separation of schools as "religious" would be contentious. Stoicism and Epicureanism, for example, have extensive theologies (see for example the discussion of these in 'De Natura Deorum'). Similarly, a classification of "main" opens up potentially contentious and subjective classifications.Teishin (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
N.b., I just made several edits where I mention the source does not support the claim. After a few of these I realized that Libgen erroneously gave me Adamson's other 2015 book on Greek philosophy "Classical Philosophy." I will recheck all of these edits.Teishin (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The claim re ataraxia on p. 15 is indeed not there. Teishin (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The claim based on pp8-9 looks to be a rather loose interpretation of what the source was discussing. Teishin (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Article: “Socrates' thought was therefore influential for many of these schools of the period, leading them to focus on ethics and how to reach eudaimonia (the good life), and some of them followed his example of using self-discipline and autarky to this end.”
- Source: “As these Hellenistic schools competed to be the true heirs of Socrates, they adopted a broadly Socratic stance on the fundamental purpose of philosophy. We do find these thinkers speculating about logic, the universe, and the divine. But for all of them, philosophy centrally concerned the question of how to live. Ethics became a central preoccupation in the Hellenistic period, as it had been for Socrates. The Hellenistic schools also shared a devotion to Socrates’ ideal of self-control and self-sufficiency.”
- Which part is loose? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The schools following Democritus did not hold up Socrates as a role model. Epicureans such as Colotes were hostile to Socrates. Pyrrhonists such as Timon ridiculed Socrates. The Hellenistic schools did not share devotion to Socratic thinking. Besides, these ideals of self-control and self-sufficiency are not Socratic. They long predate him. See Delphic maxims.Teishin (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Then you can add those qualifications with sources. Since you haven't demonstrated how I have loosely interpreted the source's claims, I will reinstate the content. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The schools following Democritus did not hold up Socrates as a role model. Epicureans such as Colotes were hostile to Socrates. Pyrrhonists such as Timon ridiculed Socrates. The Hellenistic schools did not share devotion to Socratic thinking. Besides, these ideals of self-control and self-sufficiency are not Socratic. They long predate him. See Delphic maxims.Teishin (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The claim based on p5 imputes a firmer claim than the author makes. Indeed, the author said: "This is often defined as the time beginning with the death of Alexander the Great, in BC, and ending wherever the historian you’re talking to decides it should end," Teishin (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- No such claim to be found on p10.Teishin (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The relevant quote is: “In common with other Hellenistic schools, the Cynics’ highest aim was freedom from disturbance and imperturbability, in Greek ataraxia and apatheia.”, meaning everything they did was to that end.Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is not in agreement with the content on our own Cynicism_(philosophy). You won't find "ataraxia" or "apatheia" on that page. "Ataraxia" is almost strictly in use only with Pyrrhonism and Epicureanism, with rare mentions from Stoics, usually in Latin as "tranquilitas". "Apatheia" is pretty much strictly a term used in Stoicism. See our own ataraxia and apatheia for details about these terms.Teishin (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Other parts of Wikipedia should not be used as the basis for what to include, or the whole encyclopedia just becomes circular. The practice is to rely on outside authoritative sources. However, I'm willing to let this one go, since it's not an important bit. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Where did you find that rule? Besides, if you're going to make claim X here and it is contradicted in some other article, why are you not addressing the article in which it is contradicted? You'll find editors whose expertise on those more narrow articles to be greater than what you'll find here on such summary articles. Teishin (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CIRCULAR. I do not have time to edit every single article on Wikipedia. This talk page is about this article, what other articles say or don't say is irrelevant here. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, not WP:CIRCULAR. That's about using other Wikipedia articles as sources. What I'm pointing out is that our own articles that expand on these philosophies contain outside sourced authoritative content that contradicts the content you are adding. My repeated concern is that erroneous information is being added, and this is most certainly not irrelevant. While of course you do not have time to edit everything, it would seem that at minimum editors should be familiar with the content of the articles to which they are linking and to ensure that the high-level summary they are creating is consistent with the details of the article they are linking to. The introduction of an inconsistent claim indicates that there is a problem in one or both of the articles that needs to be addressed. Preferably, an editor who is editing a high-level summary page ought to have enough interest and expertise in the subject matter to also be able to contribute to more-detailed pages. The Hellenistic philosophies are complex systems of thought. They are difficult to summarize even at the main article level. Without a thorough working knowledge of the subject matter, summarizing summaries found in books that attempt to summarize the history of philosophy presents many opportunities for misinterpretation.Teishin (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- So you are saying the source is wrong and that Wikipedia should override it? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, I am saying that you're misinterpreting the source. The source appears to be giving a rather hurried and breezy introduction to the subject by latching onto some thematic concepts to create narrative and is not to be taken literally that ataraxia, which is a technical term in Hellenistic philosophy, was an objective of the Cynics.Teishin (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, not WP:CIRCULAR. That's about using other Wikipedia articles as sources. What I'm pointing out is that our own articles that expand on these philosophies contain outside sourced authoritative content that contradicts the content you are adding. My repeated concern is that erroneous information is being added, and this is most certainly not irrelevant. While of course you do not have time to edit everything, it would seem that at minimum editors should be familiar with the content of the articles to which they are linking and to ensure that the high-level summary they are creating is consistent with the details of the article they are linking to. The introduction of an inconsistent claim indicates that there is a problem in one or both of the articles that needs to be addressed. Preferably, an editor who is editing a high-level summary page ought to have enough interest and expertise in the subject matter to also be able to contribute to more-detailed pages. The Hellenistic philosophies are complex systems of thought. They are difficult to summarize even at the main article level. Without a thorough working knowledge of the subject matter, summarizing summaries found in books that attempt to summarize the history of philosophy presents many opportunities for misinterpretation.Teishin (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CIRCULAR. I do not have time to edit every single article on Wikipedia. This talk page is about this article, what other articles say or don't say is irrelevant here. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Where did you find that rule? Besides, if you're going to make claim X here and it is contradicted in some other article, why are you not addressing the article in which it is contradicted? You'll find editors whose expertise on those more narrow articles to be greater than what you'll find here on such summary articles. Teishin (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Other parts of Wikipedia should not be used as the basis for what to include, or the whole encyclopedia just becomes circular. The practice is to rely on outside authoritative sources. However, I'm willing to let this one go, since it's not an important bit. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is not in agreement with the content on our own Cynicism_(philosophy). You won't find "ataraxia" or "apatheia" on that page. "Ataraxia" is almost strictly in use only with Pyrrhonism and Epicureanism, with rare mentions from Stoics, usually in Latin as "tranquilitas". "Apatheia" is pretty much strictly a term used in Stoicism. See our own ataraxia and apatheia for details about these terms.Teishin (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The relevant quote is: “In common with other Hellenistic schools, the Cynics’ highest aim was freedom from disturbance and imperturbability, in Greek ataraxia and apatheia.”, meaning everything they did was to that end.Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Sophists
User:keepcalmandchill Sophists should not be removed. They were active in the Hellenistic period. Note particularly the Second Sophistic.
- That should be in Ancient Roman philosophy, no? I'm fine with including the Sophists, it should just have some relevance to the era. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Roman Era philosopher?
Shouldn't post-31 BCE philosophy be moved to Ancient Roman philosophy? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that there's no agreed-upon dividing line here. Nothing forms a bright line. During the Imperial period nearly all philosophy continues to be done in Greek, mostly by Greeks. What is done in Latin is mostly for popularization, and not by important original thinkers. What we have from sources such as Marcus Aurelius and Sextus Empiricus differ little from what was said 300 years prior. Teishin (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Background
Teishin You said: "The content provided in this background seem unnecessary. The dating has already been handled in the immediately preceding lede. Moreover, the terminology re replacing is inappropriate. Cultural periods do not replace one another."
I said: "Insufficient reasoning to remove. It gives more much more detail than the one-sentence lede, including important historical context. Changed wording on periods, though."
Why is my reasoning not sufficient? It gives more detail than just dating. Just saying it's "unnecessary" does not help much. I have changed the terminology on the periods changing, even though cultural epochs by defintion do replace each other. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)