Talk:Epistemology

Link to German article on Epistemology

In the list of links to articles in other languages German seems to be missing even though there is an article called "Erkenntnistheorie" that links to this English article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkenntnistheorie). I could not figure out how to add German to the list myself or I am lacking the necessary admin privileges. Maybe anybody who has the necessary privileges to edit that list could help out? Greetings Sidonius (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sidonius: As I understand it, the language links are taken from wikidata. The English article is linked to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471. The German article is linked to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116930361. One way to fix this would be to link the German article to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9471. Before you do that, you should probably check to corresponding talk pages to see whether there is a reason for having the German article linked to a different item. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will look into it. The English page that redirects to Epistemology is linked to the wikidata-page where the German article points to. Probably a left over from earlier times. Greetings Sidonius (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Reorganisation of history in two sections

I reorganized the section on history in two sections. The first section is about understanding epistemology in terms of evolving concepts and questions. The second section is about understanding or looking at fixed contemporary epistemological concepts and questions within the history of philosophy. Some individual sentences in these two approaches might look very similar, but when we consider what is done globally, these are two completely different approaches and they must be clearly distinguished. Rather than trying to explain, here is an extract from Zagzebski 2020 that illustrates the first approach:

The idea that the knowing state is a species of the belief state undergirds the almost universal practice in epistemology of defining knowledge as true belief plus something else. But this view can be disputed since the history of epistemic concepts shows that belief and knowledge were sometimes regarded as mutually exclusive epistemic states.

It is not (yet), but it could eventually be added to the first section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph about Descartes

I am now working on the paragraph about Descartes's influence in the history of epistemology. This paragraph is, of course, perfectly appropriate in this section, which takes "history" to mean the study of the evolving concepts and questions of the past that are relevant to the understanding of contemporary epistemology. Descartes and the early modern period in general are often presented as the sources of the modern internalist view, which is so central in epistemology, even though the internalist/externalist debate as we know it today only started after Gettier in 1963. I need to find sources for this. I know I have them, but I need to find them again. Comments or suggestions will be appreciated. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just read (finally, since your posts seem to show that you do read a lot) the chapter on Descartes in Popkin's book that we already discussed. After you read that, I am ready to discuss the matter of Descartes, Spinoza, and the whole philosophy of the early modern period. Let's see what you come up with, other than the number of times that God is mentioned in the book... warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for sources that make a link with contemporary epistemology through the internalist/externalist debate, but a link through the skepticism debate would be fine. However, I am looking for an explicit link. I do not want to expand on Descartes and skepticism per se, but see what is the role of this part of the history in the path toward contemporary epistemology. I wish that the article remains centered on contemporary epistemology, even in that section. The role of that section is to put contemporary epistemology within its historical context. Perhaps you can tell me, according to your understanding, which part of the two chapters on Descartes in this 1979 book might contribute to that goal. Some extracts would be useful. Pages could be problematic, because there has been many editions of that book. I know that it is a bit superficial as a criteria, but the word "epistemology" does not occur at all in these two chapters. Had there been a clear intention to create a link with (contemporary) epistemology, the word would have been used. I know that skepticism is central in epistemology, but I prefer sources that make an explicit link with contemporary epistemology over a source that does not make this explicit link. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How in hell you can start talking about "modern epistemology" (after 1963, according to you), and the internal/external debate, without first mentioning Kant'sCritique of Pure Reason, and the concepts of Noumenon or the Thing-in-itself? And how can you start talking about these fundamental concepts for epistemology, without describing first the basic views on these matters put forward by Descartes and Spinoza? I don't think you can. But since for you all that matters is "modern epistemology" and the internal/external debate, we get this whole confusion here. And I have already mentioned this too once: Whereas Descartes and Spinoza wrote their philosophies in Latin, Kant, in the next century (the 18th), wrote his already in his vernacular German. Without a basic historic approach to the development of Philosophy in general, and of Epistemology in particular, what you get is this shallow single focus on "modern epistemology" and the internal/external debate. But the internal/external debate in modern epistemology really starts with Kant, and without clarifying that first (and studying that matter, as far as you are concerned, in my view), you cannot proceed here. If we can't talk directly and clearly about the same basic concepts, there is no sense, as far as I am concerned, in continuing discussing these matters with you here. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What I mean by contemporary epistemology is epistemology as it is done now in recent sources, the more recent the better, which is a standard approach for an encyclopedic article on epistemology. We want to be the most up to date as possible. We certainly want to situate this contemporary epistemology within the history of concepts and questions in philosophy. This includes recent history and less recent history. So, in this way we can cover Kant, etc. as long as you provide sources that make the link with contemporary epistemology. If needed for completeness, we can add whatever needed about Kant, Descartes, etc. However, we cannot start to cover Kant, Descartes, etc. in general. There are other articles that do so. And if you do not see that the internal/external debate is almost what epistemology was specifically about in the recent years, then I do not know which sources you read. Almost all other specifically epistemological concepts such as reliabilism, virtue epistemology, etc., can be seen as a part of this debate.

But, I am interested to know what it is that you want to say in that paragraph about Descartes. Is it just that you are unhappy that I question whether Popkin is a useful source for the specific content that I want to cover now. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What you're talking about is really contemporary epistemology. And I, for one, don't give a shit about it. I care only about historical epistemology. So fine, you have your interests, and I have mine. But the article about epistemology on wikipedia has to work chronologically. All your contemporary stuff can go at the end, after the development of historical epistemology is properly described. And the two sections should not me mixed up in any way, shape your form. Now, in my view you know nothing really about the history of epistemology before the current, contemporary stuff. And you also refuse to learn about it. I don't have the time now, but with time, in next months, I will go over the article again, and separate all your contemporary stuff, and move it to the end, chronologically, where it belongs. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is false that I know nothing really about the history of epistemology before the current, contemporary stuff and you should not say things like that to another Wikipedian, especially when you have no evidence to support your claim. It's the opposite. A year or so ago, I knew essentially nothing about contemporary epistemology and I thought that "epistemology" was simply another name for the philosophies of Hume, Kant, the Vienna circle, Popper, etc. I felt that the current article was too much biased on a strange view that knowledge had to be analysed as a species of belief, not to mention that, in this view, some say that a belief is only knowledge if it is true and justified. I was not even aware of the 1963 Gettier problem. However, I knew about Hume, Kant, etc. When I realised that these issues, which I knew nothing about, were the essential part of an actual academic field of study, with many books, entire department devoted to it, etc., I concluded that this field, called "epistemology" disconnected itself from useful philosophy. Many sources say so. They say that epistemology today is a useless bubble of knowledge, people talking among themselves about issues that would not have interested philosophers of the past.

But, unlike you, I decided that since really, there are many sources on that specific subject, there should be an article about it and I felt appropriate that it should be named "Epistemology", because this is the way it is named in recent encyclopedia articles and in general in the literature. In the same way, an article about physics should use contemporary sources on physics, even if it is not called "contemporary physics". Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as your contemporary stuff is kept separate, and chronologically at the end, where it belongs, you can do with it whatever you want. But this article is about classic, historic epistemology first. In reality, as far as I am concerned, you could take your stuff and start a new article about "contemporary epistemology." Maybe in the end you'll have to do that, if the stuff you keep adding here starts to get under my skin. But we'll see. Right now I don't have the time for this distraction. 17:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I would not mind that this article is about something else than (contemporary) epistemology with only something about it at the end. I am not interested in fight about articles' title, at the least not until after the articles are well written. So, let us suppose that this article is not about (contemporary) epistemology, what would it be about? In other words, can you say a bit more what you have in mind when you say "classic, historic epistemology". One way to do that would be to give a classic book on the subject from a notorious philosopher. Would that be Popkin's book? Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Warshy Your comments in this thread are really concerning. An article about X, not titled "History of X", should be about the up-to-date scholarly understanding of X, and have history as one significant aspect of that coverage. "[T]he article about epistemology on wikipedia has to work chronologically" - nope, that's not how we do other articles about abstract concepts and there's no requirement we do that here. What's concerning is that you don't feel the need to advance arguments (repetition isn't an argument), but describe your own feelings as if the rest of us have to abide by them: "if the stuff you keep adding here starts to get under my skin." "I care only about historical epistemology." This is an WP:OWNERSHIP attitude and not how we are supposed to work on this collaborative project. You're also making personal attacks against other editors, which we are definitely not supposed to do. We're not a feelings-over-facts community, and if you are going to edit the article to move the most relevant content to the end, based on feelings you have, then that's disruption. I applaud what User:Dominic Mayers is trying to do, and ask both of you to properly sign your comments so this discussion isn't unnecessarily hard to follow. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't edited this article up to this point, and don't intend to do any editing on it soon. You are right: I was mostly expressing my own feelings about the subject, basically to see if there were any other editors that concurred with some of them. Apparently there are not. I agree with your definition: "up-to-date scholarly understanding of X, and have history as one significant aspect of that coverage." That should be the guiding principle here, and you expressed it better than me. I'll refrain from further comments that may give the impression I am trying to make a personal attack, which was not my intention. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I find interesting what is written about Descartes versus internalism right at the start in the preface of Plantinga 1993: it says that there was a transition from externalism to internalism through Descartes. Of course, this is a contemporary concept seen in the history, because, at the time, they did not think in terms of an internalist/externalist debate. But, the transition itself is a genuine historical phenomena independent of the internalist/externalist debate. It makes me interested in finding more sources to explain better the connection between the debate per se and the way the transition is seen independently of that debate. Maybe I will find something in Majors & Sawyer 2007 given that Descartes is known to have used the idea that one has access to one’s knowledge in a privileged manner (and that is what opacity is about), a kind of argument that was not much used before him (and is opposed to semantic externalism). Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The new paragraph about Descartes

Here is what I propose:

Some arguments used in the contemporary externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind refer to the relation between mind and body that Descartes introduced in the early modern period. Descartes' answers to epistemological questions are not so easily related to contemporary justificatory views in naturalized epistemology and in the epistemological counterpart of this debate in particular, but both debates have been related and constitute together a fundamental part of contemporary epistemology and of key contemporary epistemological concepts such as virtue epistemology. Descartes is well known for his dualism, but he is mostly known for his skeptical approach. He used this approach, not to deny that the objects of sensory experiences follow precise laws that can be known, but to gain certainty in the mind side, in the cogito, and he used this as a platform to get to other truths. In that respect,  Descartes was influenced by Plato. However, Descartes argued for a different kind of dualism. The new aspect of Cartesian dualism, with no counterpart in Plato's dualism, is the existence of a real physical world behind the sensory experiences with its own laws and a real mental substance behind our mental experiences and a causal relation between these two worlds. The part of this view, which says that "the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism. In that sense, Descartes was the father of modern realism and, for realists, of modern philosophy as well. Descartes's interactionism (interaction between the physical reality and the substance of the mind) was abandoned in the nineteenth century because of the growing popularity of philosophical mechanism. Realism itself was not abandoned, only the coexistence of an independent substance behind the mind was abandoned.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here first, and thank for including Popkin in your refs. The ref pointing to him should have a page number too, so it can be verified. Other than that, according to the guidelines explained to me above by MartinPoulter you did a good job. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued efforts at improving this article. On the prose level, your draft reads well. On a short look, I couldn't find the discussion of the relation of Decartes' dualism to the internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology in the Popkin 1979. What is the page number of the relevant text?

It seems you directly copied the sentence "This view, in which the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism" from Frankish 2020. You have to be very careful with this since it is a copyright violation. Please make sure to remove any other sentences that were directly copied or closely paraphrased. The relevant policies are WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding copyright, I only forgot to put it in quote. I did not use Popkin as a source for the relation of Descartes' dualism to the internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology, but for the next sentence. Popkin says nothing about internalism/externalism. The relation is claimed in that first sentence, but not explained. The sentence from Popkin was only added for completeness. It is Descartes's dualism that is easily related to the externalist/internalist debate. This is going to be explained with sources, of course, at some point in the article. I am sure, you have no doubt that sources made this obvious connection. Here, the first sentence is just a lead sentence to motivate the paragraph in the context of contemporary epistemology: its point is going to be expanded and sourced in the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the copyright problem by using a quotation. The claim about the relation of Decartes' dualism to the internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology is not obvious so this should be backed up by a references to ensure verifiability. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the link must exist in sources. Otherwise, the paragraph is useless. The subject is contemporary epistemology. If there is no link with contemporary epistemology (and the only link imaginable is with the externalist/internalist debate), then I was completely wrong in discussing Cartesian dualism. However, the fact that the link is not immediately given would not be a valid reason to remove the content. You need to have reasons to believe that the link is not verifiable to remove it. Instead, you should positively try to source the link. This is what collaboration is about. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm in no way opposed to collaboration and anyone willing to help get this draft ready for inclusion in the article is welcome. Reviewing is one form of collaboration. However, finding sources for a text someone else wrote can be time-consuming, especially if the claims are rather specific and not covered by overview sources. For example, I took the time to have a look at the articles on internalism-externalism debate and virtue epistemology from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and the internet encyclopedia of philosophy ([1], [2], [3], and [4]). Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can tell, they do not directly support the claim about Descartes' dualism. This could imply that the claim is not that widely accepted. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

All these sources are indeed centered on contemporary epistemology. They are also tertiary sources and that is another issue, which I will not discuss here, though it's not unrelated to the point I am going to make. There are many sources that complain that the entire field of contemporary epistemology too much ignored the true history of philosophy and this can be seen in these sources (and perhaps even more, because they are tertiary sources on the subject). I believe that Wikipedia do not have to follow the tertiary sources you mentioned and can, and even should, also present other points view about contemporary epistemology, which are more like an external view on the field. I do not start with my personal point of view and look for sources to support it. I start with the general idea that the true historical perspective is important and then see that there is a paragraph on Descartes and, therefore, I look for sources that cover specifically the link between the history of Cartesian concepts and contemporary epistemology. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eid1803 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jskalski (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The new paragraph on Descartes

Some arguments used in the contemporary externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind refer to the relation between mind and body that Descartes introduced in the early modern period. Descartes' answers to epistemological questions are not so easily related to contemporary justificatory views in naturalized epistemology and in the epistemological counterpart of this debate in particular, but both debates have been related and constitute together a fundamental part of contemporary epistemology and of key contemporary epistemological concepts such as virtue epistemology. Descartes is well known for his dualism, but he is mostly known for his skeptical approach. He used this approach, not to deny that the objects of sensory experiences follow precise laws that can be known, but to gain certainty in the mind side, in the cogito, and he used this as a platform to get to other truths. In that respect,  Descartes was influenced by Plato. However, Descartes argued for a different kind of dualism. The new aspect of Cartesian dualism, with no counterpart in Plato's dualism, is the existence of a real physical world behind the sensory experiences with its own laws and a real mental substance behind our mental experiences and a causal relation between these two worlds. The part of this view, which says that "the external world is real but known to us only indirectly, is called indirect realism". In that sense, Descartes was the father of modern realism and, for realists, of modern philosophy as well. Descartes's interactionism (interaction between the physical reality and the substance of the mind) was abandoned in the nineteenth century because of the growing popularity of philosophical mechanism. Realism itself was not abandoned, only the coexistence of an independent substance behind the mind was abandoned.

References specific to notes

Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevancy

@Dominic Mayers: The time and effort you have invested in this section are inspiring and your recent adjustments solve the problem of the initial version. As the text in the paragraph suggests, the way the topic of the paragraph is related to epistemology seems to be rather complicated and indirect. Let's see if I can get it straight:

1. Contemporary epistemology is part of epistemology
2. The internal-external debate in epistemology belongs to contemporary epistemology
3. The internal-external debate in epistemology is not the same as the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind but there are relations between them
4. Various arguments are used in the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind
5. Some of these argument refer to Descartes' dualism

It seems that this chain of connection is not made in a single source that is cited but several sources need to be combined to sketch out this path. Are you sure that this rather distant relation justifies adding a full paragraph to a wide overview article like this one (see WP:PROPORTION)? This issue could be avoided by instead adding this discussion to an article that has the internal-external debate in philosophy of mind as a main topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Descartes is such an important figure that I do not see a need to prove the relevancy of a paragraph on Descartes in that section about how contemporary epistemology is historically informed. At the same time, claiming that Descartes had epistemological questions or finding contemporary epistemological concepts in Descartes' philosophy is something else. It is, in Barry Stroud's terminology, a "historically 'oriented' contemporary epistemology", a very different and controversial subject: many say that it is incorrect to use past philosophies in that manner. I am not saying that we should not present all pertinent view points on this, but it should be covered elsewhere, not in that section. This section is different. It must consider Descartes' philosophy as standardly seen by historians and present sources that discuss how this could inform, if at all, contemporary epistemology. I am not trying to infer that Descartes' dualism informed contemporary epistemology. On the contrary, contemporary epistemology is centred around justification and there are sources that say that Descartes was far away from contemporary justification concerns. So, the paragraph is just being plain direct about it. There is no OR at all, but I know that is not your concern. It is relevancy. In view of the importance of Descartes, the question whether it has informed contemporary epistemology is relevant. Let me add that I looked at Descartes' skepticism to see if it could have informed contemporary epistemology. Sources such as Popkin explain that Descartes used skepticism in a very special manner, not to deny knowledge of the laws of transitory external phenomena, but to gain certainty in the mind side. It is paradoxical to use skepticism to gain certainty, but that is what sources say. Descartes' argument is that God gave us a priori knowledge and skepticism is a systematic way to unveil this gift of God. No source explains how this part of Descartes' view might have informed contemporary epistemology or even philosophy of mind and I guess it did not.It is not that sources completely ignore this. For example, Robert Audi wrote "... Descartes’s well-known denial that God would allow such a world, but I cannot pursue it here." On the other hand, we have sources that explain how Descartes' dualism informed the internalist/internalist debate. The more I think about it, the content of that paragraph is not that Descartes has informed contemporary epistemology, but that he has not, except indirectly through the externalist/internalist debate in philosophy of mind. This is clearly relevant in that section and interesting. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Phlsph7 again. And this whole new excursus here is nothing more than WP:OR in my view. Descartes was no skeptic at all. He recognized the challenge of Skepticism (which is an ever present challenge which Epistemology cannot avoid), and tried to provide paths for the achievement of knowledge and certainty, which are the goals of Epistemology. I went through the Britannica entry on Epistemology again, and it is overall much better that what we have here, in my view. There is no mention in it whatsoever of the internal-external debate in so-called "comtemporary epistemology" as far as I can see. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The part about Descartes' skepticism is from Popkin, which you suggested. Moreover, the paragraph, referring to Popkin, says what you say: Descartes found his base for certainty in the cogito. You further say that Descartes had the same goal as epistemology, but if by "epistemology" here you mean contemporary epistemology, this is controversial and requires attribution and it's not the subject of that section anyway. This section is not about whether or not contemporary epistemological questions or concepts can be located in past philosophies. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it is a big mess, in my view, nothing else unfortunately. Simple misunderstandings. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

In any case, I am going to take into account what was said here. The paragraph seems to fight in a weak manner (by referring to philosophy of mind) to say that Descartes informed contemporary epistemology. I think that Phlsph7 correctly noticed that. There is something interesting to be said about the question how Descartes informed contemporary epistemology, but that one thing (the indirect connection through philosophy of mind) is only a part of it and not the first thing to be said: though I still think it is very interesting and relevant, it must be given its just place. Kornblith's view point that it did not inform naturalized epistemology is also interesting on its own. Note that he did not say that Descartes did not inform contemporary epistemology at large, because that would be a very big statement to make: there might be contemporary epistemologists that take a metaphysical view similar to Descartes' view based on apriori given to us by God (renamed as Nature). Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes

We can proceed with the central concepts and see what context is needed

The context that was moved at the end might not be what people in the contemporary epistemological bubble expect, but Wikipedia is not the place to reproduce bubbles that occur in academic circles. I mean, one might feel that the section on central concepts is self sufficient and does not need context, but that is because it is presented as a bubble that stands on its own. It presents a view of analytic philosophy on knowledge, in particular, the justified true belief view, as if it was the only view. This is not what Wikipedia must do. The whole point of having a context is to change that. But, we can start with the central concepts and try to present them in a way that acknowledges the specific place contemporary epistemology has within its context. Will see how it goes. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that articles should not ignore alternative views. But as I see it, our main job is usually to present the dominant views as discussed in the reliable academic sources. That doesn't mean that critical voices stating alternative views are ignored or silenced. But they don't receive the same attention in terms of coverage and placement. So whatever bubble the academic discourse may be in, it's not our responsibility to burst it or to protect our readers from the dominant views in it. The discussion of justified true belief and alternative characterizations is not at the beginning but found in a later section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I find annoying that you suggest that I want to protect our readers from the dominant views in the subject—I am not even sure what you mean by this and that makes it even more annoying. The natural interpretation of "protect against a content" would be not to present that content, but that leads to a ridiculous concern: my entire goal is to present the dominant and contemporary view in epistemology within its context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the cause of annoyance. If your bubble remarks were meant in different sense then I'm happy that we are on the same page. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

image for lead

A B-class article that gets as much traffic as this one ought to have an image in the lead so that it is appealingly decorated in search results. I am adding Mind in Cave by David S. Soriano. If this is too flashy, a couple other options would be [5] or [6]. I don't have strong views on what the image should be, just that the article ought to have one.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your image is that it suggests that modern epistemology asks the same questions which Plato also asked, but many philosophers disagree with that. Not only the text of a Wikipedia article, but also its images cannot present a view point in Wikipedia's voice. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My only request then would be to replace it with something you deem more neutral rather than simply removing it. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Although, honestly, if I wanted to, such a distinctly modernist take on an ancient allegory could easily be defended as making precisely your point: the same abiding interest in knowledge takes on different forms under different historical circumstances.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)