Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post my comments here as I work on the review. I may review the sections out of order. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is an excellent, succinct summary of the article.
  • Thanks for reviewing the article! Cinadon36 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, I think apeiron and nous should be italicized.
  • Quite right, fixed.[1] Cinadon36 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• The pre-Socratics invented the basic concepts of Western civilization: freedom, democracy, autonomy, and rationalism. This claim appears in the lead and in Reception, I wasn't able to see the source (Barnes) to verify it. I'm sure it's in the source but the article does not back it up, in historical background it actually says that democracy was a factor in the rise of philosophy. I would either remove this claim or add more info on the pre-Socratic ideas of freedom, democracy, etc.

Yes, I reworded the sentence, since it had to be backed by the article, regardless of a reference. [2]. Now, as for the text at Reception, it is based on Sandywell 1996, p 6 and 7. Here is a "fragment" :) from p.6

The outcome was an image of Greek antiquity as an aesthetic ideal—a myth of Greece where Hellenism was seen not merely as one important creative civilization, but as the very embodiment of ‘civilized virtue’ itself, the exemplar of cultural autonomy and ‘health’, a supreme ideal of human existence to be imitated by other nations striving to achieve ‘greatness’ and self-determination. In its extreme Romantic formulations, the Hellenic ideal imagined a civilization which folded the realms of ‘truth’, ‘beauty’, and ‘virtue’ into a harmonious totality. Ancient Greek culture was thus idealized and elevated into a sacred icon of ‘Western civilization’: for many—like Kant and Hegel, but not the ‘pagan’ Goethe—civilization was simply Greek culture made progressive by the addition of modern science and the Christian ideal of spiritual freedom. ‘Hellenism’, in sum, became an instrument of national self-identity and moral reflection.

I thought I had to summarize the text of the Sandywell in one or two sentences. Cinadon36 14:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Pythagoras created a religion-like cult Do the sources call it a cult? The word cult can have negative connotations, I would change to something like religious community or religious sect.

Correct, changed to sect [3] Cinadon36 14:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

• Greek terms: In "Terminology" you provide the Greek letters for physiologoi and physikoi, but not for theologoi or mythologoi. There are obviously a lot of Greek terms in the article, I would either provide the Greek letters for all of them or none of them.

I removed the greek words. I didn't think they provide any meaningful narrative or data to the reader. They also might distract a reader struggling with new words. I found these words to the article when I started editing, I should have removed them, then. Anyway, done. [4] Cinadon36 17:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Cosmos or kosmos- Greek for the universe, implying there is order it- it is not chaotic. Per WP:MOSDASH, you should use an en dash (–) here, right now you the sentence uses hyphens.

Done [5] Cinadon36 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, cosmos is capitalized in some places in the article and sometimes not, I'm not sure which is correct but it should be consistent. Same with Arche/arche.

Done [6] Cinadon36 17:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• (implying teleology, ironically enough considering Pre-Socratic's lack of teleology) I would remove this, pointing out irony seems unencyclopedic.

I though it would be a nice pun, that could make the reader smile, but judging retrospectively, I failed badly :) Removed.[7] Cinadon36 17:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• An important term that is met in the thought of several pre-Socratic philosophers is Arche. Depending on the context, it can take various related meanings. It could mean the beginning or origin with the undertone that there is an effect on the things to follow. Also it might mean a principle or a cause (especially in Aristotelian tradition) I think this would fit better in the "General features" section.

Yeap, I concur. Done. [8] Cinadon36 17:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Doxography

• Doxography: I would change the name of this section to "Sources", doxography is a rare word that might confuse readers (it confused me!).

I was also confused when I first read the article! Done! [9] Cinadon36 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• with final result scholars quarrelling on the various possible explanations I would remove this, you could end the sentence after the obscure language they use.

Yes, seems redundant. Done.[10].Cinadon36 17:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• They attributed the letter A if a fragment is a testimonia I would define testimonia here.

I applyied this fix[11], is it sufficient? Cinadon36 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Historical background

• Sometimes you use BC and sometimes BCE, best to just use one form, either one is fine.

Fixed (everywhere in the article) [12] Cinadon36 18:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Much of their philosophical thought was a reply, either endorsing or attacking, or modifying previous pre-Socratic arguments. I would remove this sentence, it doesn't really fit in with rest of the paragraph, which is about travel in Greece.

probably you are right, done [13] Cinadon36 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• one can notice a shy attempt towards organizing beliefs using some form of rationalization I would remove the world "shy", to me it's a little unencyclopedic.

done [14] Cinadon36 18:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• For reference #29 I could not find that information on pages 37 or 38, is on 39? Or maybe a page number error?

My wrong, it is pp 70 and 71. fixed [15] Cinadon36 19:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

General features

• This is a great section, really helps to put the rest of the article in context.

Thanks! Cinadon36 19:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• As the first philosophers: probably should be Western philosophers, Indian philosophers like Aruni predated the pre-Socratics.

I removed it, it seems a repetition. [16] Cinadon36 19:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• they coined new terms and concepts such as rhythm, symmetry, analogy, deductionism, reductionism, mathematics and others. Are you saying that the pre-Socratics invented mathematics? I don't think that is correct.

Hm, you are correct. Actually, reference says they coined "mathematization of nature". Fixed it. I was carried away maybe because Thales was the first to make some generalizations on geometry. [17] Cinadon36 19:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Based on these features they reached their most significant achievement: by the use of reason and evidence, they invented argument. That is a bold claim! Would you mind providing the quote from Barnes where he says that?

Hm...Indeed, that may have been a long shot. But isnt far from what Barnes is saying. Have a look here at section II First Philosophy pp 16-24. At p=22 Barnes says: "But my point is not that the Presocratics offered good arguments but simply that they offered arguments." From p 22 tp p 24. he says that they used arguments extensively. Also at p 24

What, then, is the substance of the claim that the Presocratics were champions of reason and rationality? It is this: they offered reasons for their opinions, they gave arguments for their views. They did not utter ex cathedra pronouncements. Perhaps that seems an unremarkable achievement. It is not. On the contrary, it is the most remarkable and the most praiseworthy of the three achievements I have rehearsed. Those who doubt the fact should reflect on the maxim of George Berkeley, the eighteenth-century Irish philosopher: All men have opinions, but few think.

I just wanted to emphasize the utilization of argument. But as Barnes also says, Aristotle was the first to study arguments in depth. Anyway, I fixed it adding "they changed the course of human thought from myth to philosophy and science" based on Barnes p22 "It cannot be said that the Presocratics established a single clear sense for the term logos or that they invented the concept of reason or of rationality. But their use of the term logos constitutes the first step towards the establishment of a notion which is central to science and philosophy". What do you think? Is it ok? There is a continous debate whether pre-Socratics were scientists, but it is an attributed opinion, so...I guess it is ok.Cinadon36 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• A second phase - the Eleatics - resisted the idea that we can become wiser. That is very interesting, could you provide more info about that idea in the section on the Eleatics?

Interesting but most prob wrong. What is more important, it is not the characteristic of Eleatics. So I changed it. [18] :) Cinadon36 20:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Socratic philosophers

• I think it would be nice to illustrate this section with pictures of some of the philosophers, for example the infobox images from Pythagorus and Democritus.

I resisted the temptation to add images of philosophers, since they do not add anything significant to the understanding of their philosophy or its significance. But, I guess one or two wont be a problem.[19]Cinadon36 20:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Or two [20] Cinadon36 08:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• He is considered the first philosopher since he was the first to use reason: I think this should be "first Western philosopher."

Done. [21] Cinadon36 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• When talking about the Eleatics, Sophists, and Pluralists, sometimes you use "What Is" and sometimes "what-is", I would choose one or the other.

Done [22] Cinadon36 21:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Peri Physeos and the Katharmoi. Could you provide translations for these terms?

Done [23] Cinadon36 05:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• he thought philosophy should be kept for those who had the appropriate intellect to understand it: Would you mind providing a quote from the source to back up this claim?

Quite remarkable, isnt it?

Plato’s objections to the sophists’ taking pay are, first, that they could not say exactly what they were selling or show its value; Plato himself believed that knowing the essence of a thing and being able to give an account of it were essential for a philosopher, and he criticizes almost all who came before him for failing to do this. Plato also argues that by accepting pay, the sophists were obligated to sell their knowledge to anyone who could pay for it, whereas he felt that the higher levels of education should be reserved for those with superior intelligence and training.7 This suggests that the sophists were relatively egalitarian in their teaching, although we must remember that those who studied with them (like those who associated with Socrates) must have led a life of leisure

Cinadon36 05:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• But an argument could be made that this statements underlines that knowledge is only relevant to humankind. Would be better to attribute this statement with a source, i.e. "Some scholars argue that this statement..."

I prefer not tbh because there is no debate, as I see it, on which interpretation is correct. If that were the case, we should attribute each interpretation to a scholar (or more scholars). But since it is widely accepted that there are many (to or more) interpretations, I think mentioning scholars will not add anything of significance.Cinadon36 05:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Topics

• While Pythagoras and Empedocles linked their self-proclaimed wisdom to their divine status: The source says that Pythagorus and Empedocles claimed to be divinely inspired, not that they were themselves gods. I would change "divine status" to "divinely inspired status".

Done [24] Cinadon36 05:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Many philosophers of the pre-Socratic and classical era were also physicians, such as Empedocles, Democritus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Plato, Aristotle and others. Are you sure about this? I was not aware that Plato was a physician.

It is been removed, it is in the garage and pending rephrasing. Look at the discussion at Talk Page. My understanding is that, during those days, philosophers were also some kind of healersor studied human body as a part of nature.. There was no definite boundary between philosophy, medicine, or other disciplines. Just as nowadays, where lots of social media users have an expert opinion on everything (including me of course). :) Cinadon36 05:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• But how it all started? How did the substance of the universe arose? Pre-socratics were as puzzled with this question as modern scientists. This is a bit informal, I would change to something like, "The pre-Socratics did not offer explanations of the origin of the universe."

I removed it altogether. I feel it does not provide any meaningful information. I had placed the question in an attempt to make the article more interesting read, but that is not so encyclopedic...[25] Cinadon36 05:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• filled with fears and misery: Seems non-neutral to me, I would remove that phrase.

Done. [26] Cinadon36 05:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• to seek for a unitary archai: What is the difference between arche and archai?

merely phonetic reconstruction of the same word. [27] changed. Cinadon36 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Anaximandros offered the: Anaximander?

lol, Anaximandros is the modern greek name for anaximander. My mistake, fixed. [28] Cinadon36 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The pre-Socratics seemed indifferent to the concept of teleology: This conflicts with the earlier statement that While some pre-Socratics were trying to find alternatives to divinity, others were setting the foundation of explaining the universe in terms of teleology.

Correct, I rephrazed. [29]. Most presocratics were indifferent to teleology, seems more accurate. Cinadon36 07:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• 449-450 Xenophanes also advanced 449-450? Page numbers?

Yes, sorry, fixed. [30] Cinadon36 07:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• The chronolgical order of the "antiquity" section seems a bit off, it discusses Socrates, then Cicero, then Xenophon, then Plato and Aristotle. I would move Cicero to the end since he came later.

Hm, I get the problem. I applied this fix[31]. The reason is that, Socrates, Xenophon and Cicero, represent one line of viewing pre-Socratics, while Aristotelian tradition represents another line. I hope the addition of the sentence, minimizes the confusion. Cinadon36 07:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The reason was, according to Xenophon, Socrates acknowledges that we can people can not understand the nature of Cosmos. I think this should have a source.

Done[32] Also, I rephrased. Cinadon36 08:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Even though Socrates was accused of impiety since he continued to examine pre-Socratics opinions on nature, and sentenced to death, according to Diopeithes Degree Can we remove this sentence? Doesn't seem relevant to the theme of the pre-Socratics' reception.

Done, I found it impressive when I was reading the text, so I was carried away and inserted it.[33] Cinadon36 08:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The materialistic Stoics The source doesn't say materialistic and I'm not sure that's the best description of Stoic physics, I would remove the word materialistic.

Correct.[34].Cinadon36 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think the link for McCarty 1999 is wrong, it took me to the Oxford Handbook of Atheism.

Yes, removed [35] Cinadon36 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I like that in the modern reception you only focus on a few important thinkers, you don't waste time giving the opinion of every modern philosopher.

Yes, it would have been a mess trying to add every modern philosopher. Cinadon36 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

More to follow! Loving this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Can't wait! Cinadon36 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

GA criteria

• Prose: A lot better than I could do writing in a second language! I've made some copy edits and I'll do another read through before I pass the article, shouldn't be an issue.
• Verifiable: Excellent referencing, just a few dubious claims which I pointed out in the comments above.
• Broad: Yes, the article is well laid out and thorough.
• Neutral: For the most part, just a few issues in the comments.
• Stable: You are still working through the pre-Socratic/Presocratic issue, it's just a hyphen so either way is fine with me.
• Illustrated: Yes, I'd just like to see images of some of the philosophers.

OK I'm sorry for the long review, I think this is an extremely important article so it's worth taking the time to get it right. I'll place the article on hold for seven days so you can work through the comments, let me know if you disagree with anything I said. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Definitely the article is improved by now. I have added two illustrations. Unless the pictures illustrates a more or less significant characteristic of a philosopher, I am hesitant on adding it. I have added laughing Democritus and the Empedocles fall into the volcano. The hyphen issue depends on the MOS- and to be honest- I do not really mind, either way is fine. There is another issue with the (see talk page) but I think it is a minor one and we are close to a consensus. Cinadon36 08:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You work quickly!! Article meets all of the criteria now except for stability :) I'll wait a day or two until your discussion with Teishin is complete, then probably pass the article. I agree with you about the hyphen, it's just a cosmetic issue and not too important. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Teishin: Since you seem to specialize in Greek philosophy, please let me know if there's anything else we need to do before closing this review, I appreciate your input. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I specialize in Hellenistic philosophy. I'm trying to eke out more time to work on this article. I had a back injury a week ago and I'm rather behind on things because of it. I anticipate getting caught up this weekend.Teishin (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that :( No rush! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm I don't want to prolong this review unnecessarily, looks like it has been 7 days since I placed it on hold. In my opinion it meets the GACR so I am going to close the review as pass, of course I'm sure there is room for improvement. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cerebellum, you have been a fantastic reviewer and I am anticipating Teishin to make his comments/changes on the article and further improve this article! Cheers! Cinadon36 12:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)