Talk:Gadfly (philosophy and social science)/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
old talk
The vfd entry seems to have gone missing from that page. Thue 13:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's still there; second one on June 2. - Hephaestos|§ 14:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I was confused too - it looked as though it had disapeared - I think the link on the article page got de-linked from the vfd page somehow. Mark Richards 15:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Pragmatic Ethics
While the connection is... tangible... it seems like a bit of a reach to me. Are there any proper sources out there that it can be linked to? 98.219.192.79 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
A book: "The Gadfly"
There is a novel by Ethel Lilian Voynich named "The Gadfly" (and at least two Russian films).
Do you think that this is the same meaning of the word?
--217.237.151.171 16:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
whose trial?
I thought Socrates was put on trial, not Plato:
- During his defence when on trial for his life, Plato wrote that Socrates pointed out that dissent,
--MarSch 14:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- @MarSch: Looks like this has been fixed by the time I read the article. Currently reads:
- Socrates
- The term "gadfly" (Greek: μύωψ, mýops[1]) was used by Plato in the Apology[2] to describe Socrates's relationship of uncomfortable goad to the Athenian political scene, which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse.
- During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high: "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me" because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth." This may have been one of the earliest descriptions of gadfly ethics.
- Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
negative?
It was my impression that social gadfly is used usually in a negative context, it can be argued that they are really positive, but I thought that people generally used the term as an insult.
Socrates is speaking to a court of full of his peers. Though many of his peers had mixed thoughts as to what the verdict may be, Socrates was widely hated by the judicial system, government, and official political body as a whole. Socrates was aware of this, and sought to mock the government (just read the ending. In ancient greece, the criminal was given the chance to state what he felt his punishment should be. Judges suggested death. Socrates suggested that the government subsidize the rest of his life for the work he had done in improving ancient greek society), and demonstrate the faultiness of their claims. So by calling himself a gadfly, he makes reference to negative perspective suffered by the judicial and political system, but seeing as how his crimes were no where near as immoral as the courts (murdering an innocent), socrates attempts to explain his actions through a comparison that will be missed by the court but heard by the jury. 75.85.172.223 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
positive:
- For a philosopher, being called a Gadfly could be deemed as a compliment. Being compared to Socrates would be in this sense, positive. Creating a stir in a political sheme would imply some type of positive effects. Noam Chomsky and Micheal Moore could be deemed as Gadflies. They both are a "pain in the butt" per se as a Gadfly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadfly62 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Misquoting Plato
In the article, Plato's Apology of Socrates is quoted: "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me." That's clearly taken from Apology 30c[1]. But, then, right after this in the article, there is another quotation: "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth." It's not so clear where this is taken from. It looks more like an attempt to paraphrase rather than quote Apology 30e-31a[2], where Socrates actually uses the gadfly-metaphor. But he doesn't mention the "service of truth" in this passage. Isokrates 20:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The only place I've found this quote is in an autobiography of Oppenheimer, and I wonder if it could have been the slogan of the Journal of a Harvard Society around 1922. See this : https://books.google.ca/books?id=FE6NDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=to+sting+people+and+whip+them+into+a+fury,+all+in+the+service+of+truth&source=bl&ots=OSnvRfp9Rr&sig=7Y1QynEmj-_vSMeqPl9JII8Dyt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn4oHPsv3dAhUp1lkKHT23AEcQ6AEwDHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=to%20sting%20people%20and%20whip%20them%20into%20a%20fury%2C%20all%20in%20the%20service%20of%20truth&f=false --Niespika (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Editing Jeremiah
I reworded the information regarding the book of Jeremiah. I'm not looking to upset anybody or turn this valid quote into a religious discussion. Describing him as a "prophet" and claiming the words were written before the trial of Socrates is POV. People of different faith would not necessarily see this as appropriate, and it's not relevant to the article.
I added the specific verse the quote is taken from (Biblegateway.com allows searching of multiple translations and interpretations of the bible) if anybody is interested. (wasn't signed in, redoing sig)--Legomancer (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the word translated as "gadfly" is unclear (in the original Hebrew), and that this translation is anything but agreed on universally. -- 07:22, 29 May 2014 79.176.158.115
Article name
I've moved the article to Social gadfly, because parenthesizing an adjective is weird. Usually you disambiguate by adding category nouns in parenthesis. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it shouldn't perhaps be Gadfly (philosophy), being that the term comes from Plato. Reinistalk 12:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Social gadfly serves well to counter the conformity standard in social studies. That article discusses normative influence, with a nod to minority influence, which is where the gadfly fits.Rgdboer (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
exact match content
exact match content: p.81 The Socratic Classroom - Sarah Davey Chesters (13 September 2012) (& p.81)
to:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_gadfly&oldid=472124530 20:59, 19 January 2012
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_gadfly&oldid=408058215 18:32, 15 January 2011
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_gadfly&oldid=350088052 15 March 2010
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_gadfly&oldid=267360274 07:20, 30 January 2009
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_gadfly&oldid=183179940 14:53, 9 January 2008
05:14, 25 December 2019 (→ 22:45, 15 January 2020), the latter is vandalism
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
moved content of 21:17, 28 January 2020
During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high: "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me" because his role was that of a gadfly,
This may have been one of the earliest descriptions of pragmatic ethics.
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
(content of 21:18, 28 January 2020 deleted because unverifiable (online, using Google only) holding 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC) in this heading to be true @ Diametakomisi (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC))
(link (descriptor has two words) shown in 21:18, 28 January 2020 (under this heading), changed because the destinated article is a no-match in the first element (word) of the deleted descriptor (the changed link is shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_gadfly&oldid=472124530 is an exact match destinate : descriptor @ (t=) Diametakomisi (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
(please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASocial_gadfly#Misquoting_Plato)
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC) (minor change made after signature)
the former quote is found in translated "by Benjamin Jowett" Agora Publications, Inc., 2005 p.37
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
the latter to p.3 (Google), p.1 Google books
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Essay on Socrates and gadflies
User:Diametakomisi, your recent additions to the article contain a great deal of interesting information, but I'm afraid aren't really suitable for Wikipedia. They are more like an essay than a WP article. I think there is some really great information that we should integrate into the article -- notably Kitchell's characterization of the role of the horsefly -- but there is a lot more that is not really relevant, for example, the exact entomological characterization or the history of the word "gad". It is also peculiar that you cite the word as μύωπός, which is an inflected form with a second accent, where the citation form is μύωψ -- it really isn't necessary to say that the nominative isn't found in the original, for example. Discussing what a metaphor is in detail again doesn't belong in this article. Finally, we don't include searches and other background in articles. --Macrakis (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
change of title
I took the liberty of changing the title, since, strange but true, the article title was "Social gadfly" at the 1st version of 00:28, 2 June 2004, but the lead at that time showed "gadfly" not "social gadfly" - I didn't look through every subsequent version (and I neglected to change the lead / article title when I began to make changes to the article @ article id=937873941 at 19:16, 27 January 2020, I just didn't see the problem actually, like perhaps so many others) - although after being spurred on to look for my errors after the reversion of user: Macrakis I did actually perceive this discrepancy / error, 18:32, 31 January 2020. The original version of 2 June 2004 doesn't show the title at that time, instead it shows the current title, for some unknowable reason
thanks, Diametakomisi (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
change of "gadfly" to "fly"
(this part included after the proceeding):
c.f. Miller & Platter 2012 p.93
Diametakomisi (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
in version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)&oldid=938500894, Morwood and Taylor shows μυîα as fly, which indicates (as I implicated in that edit) the word used by Plato was fly, as in a rough translation Athens a horse goaded by a fly
...ὑμῖν ἐμοῦ καταψηφισάμενοι. ἐὰν γάρ με ἀποκτείνητε, οὐ ῥᾳδίως ἄλλον τοιοῦτον εὑρήσετε, ἀτεχνῶς—εἰ καὶ γελοιότερον εἰπεῖν—προσκείμενον τῇ πόλει ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὥσπερ ἵππῳ μεγάλῳ μὲν καὶ γενναίῳ, ὑπὸ μεγέθους δὲ νωθεστέρῳ καὶ δεομένῳ ἐγείρεσθαι ὑπὸ - 30e
μύωπός τινος, οἷον δή μοι δοκεῖ ὁ θεὸς ἐμὲ τῇ πόλει προστεθηκέναι τοιοῦτόν τινα, ὃς ὑμᾶς ἐγείρων καὶ πείθων καὶ ὀνειδίζων ἕνα ἕκαστον οὐδὲν παύομαι τὴν ἡμέραν ὅλην πανταχοῦ προσκαθίζων.τοιοῦτος οὖν ἄλλος οὐ... - 31a
- μυîα - fly
- οîστρος - gadfly
- ἵππος ου ό - horse
(Morwood & Taylor)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/goad Greek khaios "shepherd's staff - is χαίος (using google translation) - https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CF%87%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%82 (verified @ this source)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iwWuY9tAVq8C&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=ancient+greek+word+for+goad+gad&source=bl&ots=C7Tj_ullOw&sig=ACfU3U3z4r0SXiGhKEKrcHZe8myDGd9HGQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiS2dX8r7DnAhWTFcAKHbfbA944FBDoATACegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greek%20word%20for%20goad%20gad&f=false p.477 Chambers concise dictionary "2. derogatory old use a person who deliberately and persistently annoys others" is social gadfly, but history of "gadfly (philosophy)" begins at definition 1., i.e. the use of the simile in Plato Apology is the 1st use, not the 2nd
Diametakomisi (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
criteria which seem plausible but non returns from sources to date (& delineation of criteria)
"the Socratic fly is a fly on a corpse of war" and the religious ideas of angels are flies (because Socrates was a soldier, he knew of this reality)
Diametakomisi (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (added url to criteria after signature Diametakomisi (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC))
"the afterlife is a rotting corpse with flies" - "decomposition" in : (Mo Costandi 2015, the Guardian) (return 1), The Australian Museum (3rd), wikipedia (9th & 10th)
valid return
> decomposition > Plato composed a writing (he did not de-compose) literary (literally)
Diametakomisi (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (corrections after signature, added criteria description to url (closed with bracket), added factor gleaned from criteria (to sources), minor correction - typo) Diametakomisi (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)) (minor correction after signature - added term. bracket to previous summary 1 space) Diametakomisi (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (minor correction after signature - deleted typo in previous summary) Diametakomisi (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
theory after after 11:06 - 11:29, 3 February: the terror (stress) of fighting in battle the sight of the dead enemy is the experience of relief (like a paradise) - influence to Plato (because of the experience of knowing death)
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
because their eyes were closed (see ("c") > lost - open, but they didn't understand or see anything) muope Diametakomisi (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
instead c.f. "steed", "instead" from preparing an edit "..Marfin Popular Bank" (subsequently changed to Cyprus Popular Bank) (source) > (now instead Cyprus) > @ Optima bank
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
"flea ridden" (criteria identified c. 21:01 hrs)
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
theory: contemplation (Socrates) is made contemp(t) and (h)ate; in the argument of his trial (ate poison) Diametakomisi (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
relevant sources not included in this current time
using criteria: "computer tel of the gadfly Socrates":
2/10 - Dr Brian Klug - https://www.st-benets.ox.ac.uk/article/god-and-gadfly-reading-platos-apology Diametakomisi (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
7/10 - G.Michael Schneider, Judith Gersting - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V69EDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA809&lpg=PA809&dq=computer+tel+of+the+gadfly+Socrates&source=bl&ots=JgFXNtE8Ic&sig=ACfU3U3hHVLQrxQ-zhVyQIcLWyVN2iLmew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjd6f6enbbnAhXYQkEAHZrxCZIQ6AEwDnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=computer%20tel%20of%20the%20gadfly%20Socrates&f=false Diametakomisi (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (signature added seconds after url save)
9/10 - Michael Erler - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131857.2017.1373339 Diametakomisi (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
5/10 (errata "...put to death by poison.") - https://yalebooksblog.co.uk/2013/04/18/socrates-the-gadfly/
"history of translation of Plato Apology" Diametakomisi (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) "1st translation of Plato Apology" Diametakomisi (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC) - Victor Schnidt - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xt2G0MtoP_sC&pg=PA9&dq=1st+translation+of+Plato+Apology&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis-JCJo7bnAhWbgVwKHWJoBzsQ6AEIVzAF#v=onepage&q=1st%20translation%20of%20Plato%20Apology&f=false
- (criteria described using Schmidt p.9; precedent: Christina Hoenig Calcidius Brill Leiden NV 2017-2018 - accessed 2020-2-2) "Cicero translation of Plato Apology 30e" - https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=ancient-political (opened) Diametakomisi (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC) - opened extra-criteria (non-match) Diametakomisi (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
"1st english translation in history of Apology by Plato" Diametakomisi (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC) "1st english translation in of Plato Apology " Diametakomisi (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (correction : signature added seconds after criteria)
loose url 20:35 - 23:07 (just words used not academic sources)
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Article doesn't follow Wikipedia Manual of Style
@Diametakomisi: You have added a lot of information to the article, but as I mentioned in my previous comment, your contributions don't conform to WikiPedia style in multiple ways:
- The lead section should "give the basics in a nutshell" and should "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". In the case of this article, the topic is the gadfly as social critic. This article is not about the insect, though of course the insect is used metaphorically.
- WP:REFERS: Articles are about concepts, not words. The concept here is a social critic, not an insect, and certainly not the word "gadfly".
- There are sentences which I can't understand at all. What does "The behaviour of the insect(s) is used as a semantic root for identification of the word to individuals in the modern social environ, because of the semantic association of the concept, as an organism that interacts with horses specifically, and not understood in the sense of parasitism,..." mean?
- Since this is the article about gadflies as social critics, it does not need detailed entomological discussion. It also doesn't need detailed etymological information about the origin of the word "gadfly" -- it is enough to know that it refers to stinging insects.
- WP doesn't include notes on how you found information using Google or other sources. And in any case, a Google search is not considered to be a reliable source.
- The relevance of "(source Google, shows errata: "fiction")" is unclear. What do errata or fictions have to do with the topic?
- What is the relevance of the Modern Greek words for flies?
There is a lot more that can be improved.
Perhaps the biggest problem in your editing of this article is that you are ignoring my attempts to make the article conform to Wikipedia style. I contributed a clearer and simpler lead, more conformant to Wikipedia style, and you restored your problematic content (though you did keep some of my words).
Collaborative editing is a cornerstone of Wikipedia -- the article doesn't belong to you or anyone else. Let's work together to make a better article. You have some great sources, and I'm confident that they can be used to make an article that conforms to Wikipedia style. Let's work together to make that happen. --Macrakis (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Macrakis: well let me explain the reason why these things are occurring (I didn't see your ping until ~ the time this of this response):
I can't explain to you my fault in the 1st criticism "is not about the insect", because by definition gadfly is an insect, which didn't allow me to exclude the subject of insects, types of insects - although I agree with you the description of relevant insects seems to be unacceptable, this isn't the case that the insect angle on the title Gadfly (philosophy and social science) excludes insects, by rights of a look at the sources, which obviously show gadfly is a type of insect and indicates the names of the actual insects. That there isn't an actual source that describes the insect names and additionally indicates the subject Philosophy, does not negate the relevancy of the names, after Aristotle;
Lilian Bodson (October - November 1983) "..all agree that Aristotle was the first scholar to give an extensive account of these smallest of creatures...Since he was the first to study insects extensively, or, at least, to compile and enlarge upon what was already known about them (Byl, 1980; Chroust 1973; Grayeff 1956) https://www.jstor.org/stable/43935660?seq=1
who was a philosopher, as we both know, and engaged in detailing scientifically insect types. additionally, the article isn't written showing anything more about insects, than a cursory mention of gadfly (which in the time of Socrates described a group of insects which behaved, as the modern understanding also understands, which is to annoy animals, without knowing anything much scientific, as after Aristotle, more was known) in order to introduce the actual real thing that is a gadfly, instead of a classical notion, i.e. what you are suggesting is a total dis-regard for the scientifically known gadfly to focus only on bthe classically known gadfly, which would be neo-classical thought i think, and not a neutral position (i.e. neutrality) on the article.
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
"WP:REFERS: Articles are about concepts, not words. The concept here is a social critic, not an insect" I'm sorry to say, but your statement isn't true - the reason I'm stating this is because, as in any subject of philosophy (as you see at the head of the page), the subject is philosophy, not "social critic" - the second factor of the article identification, as to how to progress to article content is "social science". You tell me how the subject has anything at all to do with criticism in the social environment, where are the sources???? where are the actual sources for your idea that your idea of the article is a valid idea for how I am or anyone else is meant to progress with article development. Show me sources to support your suggestion and I'll proceed to follow your indication for sourcing and content, obviously. The introduction shows the commencement Gadfly is a word you see the word on the screen now? do you hear a buzzing noise too? The sentence continues to describe the subject WELCOME TO PHILOSPHY!! how is a person meant to understand as you describe? the logical progression of thought in philosophy includes anything relevant to the subject, it is your limited notion of the scope of the article which is dictating to me (and who-ever else you think must understand gadfly....is some-how not a word), look at the greek original, is a word in the classical language - the word μύωπός translates as the word fly, not as gadfly; "a fly which flies to a horse (Athens) and stings the horse" is known today as a gadfly, because any insect which stings a horse is thought of a gadfly, because non-scientifically knowing people cannot define the actual insect. If i or anyone sees a horse stung in a field, and I or anyone is not interested to know the nature of the fly, the word gadfly is a cover-all description for the fly-horse ecology, where the fly stings is the defining characteristic
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
oh, I didn't read your concluding remark there "Let's work together to make that happen", not necessary to think I'm venting hatred at you then Macrakis Diametakomisi (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead section should...
WP:REFERS also pertains to the introduction (lead) @ "The concept here is a social critic, not an insect, and certainly not the word "gadfly"." as does "What does ... mean? (which shows a sentence in the introduction as the questioned
My choice, in lieu of consus at t(time being the now)= Diametakomisi (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) (because I'm the only editor engaged in changes currently, is to reduce the complications of the introduction, which is in view of a compromise to Macrakis. But Since this is the article about gadflies as social critics is not possible, because, as the subject is defined currently Gadfly (philosophy and social science), the definition of gadfly as social critique is only a much narrower appreciation of the idea of gadfly, being only with regards to:
1. the position of the state, Athens, in the classical sense. That is to say, that Macrakis is expressing support for the death of Socrates, the reasons for this support aren't though necessary to know
2. the position of the state (Athens) as critic (the prosecution in the trial of Socrates) and condemnant (the guilty verdict) being in this time presently the same thing as association to social gadfly, in the understanding only as gadfly being an annoying or disturbing (in the sense only of bad, negative, wrong, injurious) - this understanding, if true of a criticism of a person i.e. "social critic" today (or in the recent (contemporaneous) past) is not actually true of the full appreciation of gadfly - the thing being an idea expressed by Plato, as understood as a thing, idea, today - this is easily provable by the vary nature of the status of Socrates as retained to this moment in time, of his being "..one of the founders of Western philosophy, and as being the first moral philosopher[5][6] of the Western ethical tradition of thought.." - which indicates that if Socrates were the person of his verdict only, then today people wouldn't consider the individual to be of worth. To re-state this, if the orign of the criticism, of the application of the bad, criticism, observation of wrong, error in others as gadfly (the identification of some-one being a Socratic gadfly, gadfly like figure)=(a) criticism in the social realm (aspect, social existence of today), then the criticism would be simply the most strongly held and true aspect of thought, originating with Socrates, and therefore available to us all today as a way of character assassination or the like. But this is not the case, because Plato and Aristotle were in the mileau of Socrates and people value these two people, and especially because Plato, who is today so highly esteemed, was a great advocate and appreciater of Socrates, so, the idea of gadfly being social critic(ism) is no more true today, than it was in the time of the events of Socrates, except for, and only alone, the position of the prosecution in the trial, in a less complete appreciation of the philosophical meaning of the word - which is so inescapably rooted to ancient greek philosophy intrinsically.
Diametakomisi (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
indication by source "not about the insect", "concept here is a social critic, not an insect", "does not need ... entomological discussion" is not possible
Tamler Sommers (2016; Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Houston) Chapter 9 Peter Singer A Gadfly for the Greater Good
The chapter commences with a definition (Merriam-Webster) of the word gadfly "a fly that bites livestock, especially a horsefly, warble fly or bot fly → Chapter 9 (source doesn't show page numbers)
with regards to "does not need detailed entomological discussion", the introduction doesn't give much more discussion than the source, I'm sure "detailed" really is an exaggeration of the facts of the discussion in the article, c.f. the articles botfly horse fly, (I haven't looked at the articles) comparing the articles, the quantity of detail on the subject of the insects in this article to the two articles with the titles of the actual insects, surely there is more details on the subject of insects in the insect articles, how this therefore indicates that the discussion in this article is "detailed", it doesn't.
Diametakomisi (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Sommers was located using "philosophy the actual gadfly Socrates bot fly warble fly horsefly" using Google
c.f. also "POL200Y5 Lecture Notes - Fall 2019, Lecture 3 - Socratic Dialogue" (7th return) is https://m.utm.utoronto.ca/course_descriptions.php?id=&course_id=POL200Y5&dep_id=31&type=3&header= "Political Theory" University of Toronto Mississauga "Before his arrest, Socrates tries to learn what it means to possess true wisdom/ if. he is the ... He says that he has a purpose of being a Gadfly- a fly that bites livestock,. especially a horsefly, warble fly, or botfly. 4. He says ... B. Philosophy. 1."
Diametakomisi (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
using "Socrates bot fly warble fly horsefly" - p.10 of criteria
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gadfly#synonyms shows mention of Socrates on the same page as the description of fly types (3rd return)
Diametakomisi (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC) (signature replaced after 1st save as 3 tildes, not 4 tildes)
using "bot warble horsefly Socrates" (10th page) - no relevant returns to the proof
Diametakomisi (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
David John Farmer https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wB0mekfT63sC&pg=PA21&dq=Socrates+gadfly+is+fly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip6eOqodnnAhXvRBUIHSAjDsIQ6AEIOzAC#v=onepage&q=Socrates%20gadfly%20is%20fly&f=false
"A gadfly is more than a horsefly that annoys livestock" - mentions in actuality "horsefly" (i.e. does not completely exclude any actual word referring to actual fly types)
(n.b. the word livestock is a farming term for cattle, as stock (in a company, has value)
Diametakomisi (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) (t in signature does not represent time of sourcing due to delay of activation of save function, because of editorial activity, and additionally a subsequent edit conflict) (moved after signature to different heading due to err Diametakomisi (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)) (1 minor correction after signature Diametakomisi (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC))
preliminary decision on the issue of whether not or to include gadfly is a type (types of flies) (is relevant or not)
I decided to remove the introduction fly types to a sub-heading because:
"article is not about the insect," (Macrakis (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020), is true, because as the subject, being philosophy (and social science), commencing with only philosophy as the first introduced explanation of the subject is true of the article definition (a continuation of the expected article title), but including mention of the actual insects in a sub-heading because of Sommers and Farmer (which I'm sure is bias to my own preference on my part in the decision process of consensus, but) the two sources do show actual insect types, plus Schneider & Williams "Hedenborg, Professor in Sport Science, Malmö University. Hedenborg has an academic background in Economic and social history
because the other sources don't show this discretion, to express the subject Socrates gadfly to include details of fly types (i.e. to determine that there is a difference between the English translated Platonic classical idea that is the word "gadfly", and the actual reality of flies and horses that must be the experience of Socrates and/or Plato as it was then as it is today), does not exclude the relevancy of the inclusion of fly types
Diametakomisi (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
changes to the introduction of the 16th of February 2020
within modern scientific understanding describing insects such as the warble-fly, botfly, [4] and horse fly. [1] With regards to how these facts are relevant to philosophy and social-science generation of thought; the behaviour of the insect(s) is used as a semantic root for identification of the word to individuals in the modern social environ, because of the semantic association of the concept to a classical era idea, as an organism that interacts with horses specifically, and not understood in the sense of parasitism, as used in the seminal speech of Socrates in Apology as communicated by the literary Socrates in the Apology of Plato, to identify people with regards to the status quo of a society or community, metaphorically, as the concept of an individual who "stings" a society or its leaders by challenging their beliefs and behaviors, in order to drive forward to progress ideas of civility that are dwelling in a stalled state.
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
"in order to drive forward to progress ideas of civility that are dwelling in a stalled state" is a continuation of the classical idea as expressed in Apology, but isn't at this time possible to include as true of the modern gadfly, because there aren't any sources showing that the modern idea: gadfly, is the same as the Socratic idea, (the fly-horse idea obviously)
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
because of the semantic association of the concept to a classical era idea...as used in the seminal speech of Socrates in Apology
I think it is not necessarily true that the whole idea of the modern gadfly hinges upon the Socratic notion, because there is a Homeric precedent gadfly (John P. Harris https://muse.jhu.edu/article/717956/pdf), so it isn't certain all things gadflyish in thought are pinable to Plato (perhaps) (certainly, that is, without going through sources on the use of "gadfly" as an identification in modern politics and mileau to see if the modern and classical align as expressed in the introduction currently)
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
indications of the modern gadfly
sourced using:
"Socrates gadfly is a botfly warble fly horsefly"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qv_-zBvd11EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Socrates+gadfly+is+a+botfly++warble+fly+horsefly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibm4SSn9nnAhUcXhUIHWmXBygQ6AEIWDAG#v=onepage&q&f=false (Preview) (1st page google books) ISBN 8171886574, ISBN 9788171886579
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WbIwAQAAIAAJ&q=Socrates+gadfly+is+a+botfly++warble+fly+horsefly&dq=Socrates+gadfly+is+a+botfly++warble+fly+horsefly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzopKgn9nnAhVKShUIHdHYBKo4ChDoAQgzMAE (snippet) (2nd page google books) ISBN 1934843466, ISBN 9781934843468
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F1FwAAAAMAAJ&q=Socrates+gadfly+is+a+botfly++warble+fly+horsefly&dq=Socrates+gadfly+is+a+botfly++warble+fly+horsefly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzopKgn9nnAhVKShUIHdHYBKo4ChDoAQhrMAg (snippet) (2nd page google books) ISBN 9067182427, ISBN 9789067182423
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YYo7DAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Socrates+gadfly+is+a+botfly++warble+fly+horsefly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwius_Kln9nnAhWDr3EKHYXsAIQ4FBDoAQhAMAM#v=onepage&q&f=false (preview) (3rd page google books) ISBN 1504035046, ISBN 9781504035040
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=44jawAEACAAJ&dq=Socrates+gadfly+is+a+botfly++warble+fly+horsefly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwius_Kln9nnAhWDr3EKHYXsAIQ4FBDoAQhJMAQ ISBN 1403332320, ISBN 9781403332325 (no preview) (3rd page google books)
list of search criteria and any indications of (new) relevancy
(2nd return) Paul Muench Socratic Ignorance - p.395 A Companion to Socrates edited by Sara Ahbel-Rappe, Rachana Kamtekar
makes the discretion ([3],[4]) between fly and gadfly
David John Farmer https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wB0mekfT63sC&pg=PA21&dq=Socrates+gadfly+is+fly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip6eOqodnnAhXvRBUIHSAjDsIQ6AEIOzAC#v=onepage&q=Socrates%20gadfly%20is%20fly&f=false (3rd return)
Diametakomisi (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
"instigated" (was thought true (though erroneously) to use "would be made, credited with $10 billion" @ "made" (Jeff Bezos > Wealth)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instigate "to goad or urge forward" (4th return)
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) c.f. Talk:Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)#changes_to_the_introduction_of_the_16th_of_February_2020 "..in order to drive forward to progress ideas of civility.." Diametakomisi (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
18:50, 18 February 2020 id=941461957 with regards to the use of "Plato's" not "written by Plato"
returned from Macrakis 21:51 & 2, 11 February 2020 (id=940326823 & 940326966), with the change "Plato's" > "written by Plato" - because the former indicates possession in addition to authorship, the latter indicates authorship; with regards to << ownership >> the former is loaded to Plato against Socrates (being implicitly: Plato contra Socrates - if "loaded" + gun) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/loaded, if Socrates actually spoke the actual words, Plato doesn't own
because "loaded meaning" - 2.weighted or biased towards a particular outcome (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/loaded)
is Plato's is an easy commencing to concluding passage of thought on the problem of the expression of the Apology of Socrates written by Plato as to the factors:
Socrates is the lead character, but is written by Plato - who then owns the work?
"...Surely that would have limited his ability to invent or alter Socrates’ defense" (http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~demilio/2211unit2/scrtscmt.htm)
considering the fact of execution by the state is a continued exisitng fact in some countries, and states (i.e. the Unites States), the desire to side with the executed in any consideration of position is perhaps the consideration that such a thing is the seed of one's own destruction, and I am not advocating the contrary, only that the truth is (reality), falsehood isn't
Diametakomisi (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
use of the word "behaviour" in "as an attachment of identification of the behaviour of the insect(s) to the identification of individuals" within the introduction
1st return: "the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others" https://www.lexico.com/definition/behaviour
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/behavior "a particular way of acting"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/behaviour "the way that someone behaves" 1st of 3rd; "the way that a person, an animal, a substance, etc. behaves in a particular situation or under particular conditions" 2nd of 3rd
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behavior "the way in which someone conducts oneself or behaves", "a: the manner of conducting (see CONDUCT entry 1 sense 2) oneself" (c.f. Daniel W. Chaney), b "anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation" c "the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/behavior (c.f. is a tautology) "1. People's or animals' behavior is the way that they behave. You can refer to a typical and repeated way of behaving as a behavior" "tautology"
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
looking at Chaney (Daniel W. Chaney — Table 2 Behavior words, defined and listed chronologically, in, An Overview of the First Use of the Terms Cognition and Behavior, published in Behavior Sciences (Basel). 2013 Mar; 3(1): 143–153. Published online 2013 February 7. doi: 10.3390/bs3010143 PMCID: PMC4217620 PMID: 25379231)
"Abstract...traces the first use of the terms using the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)...the first term related to behavior was port, which appeared circa 1330...Each family of terms experienced tremendous growth during the first appearance of terms...
1. Introduction Psychology as a disciplinary study has seen many approaches. Two of the most dominant approaches are cognitivism and behaviorism.Behaviorism, championed by Watson and Skinner, focuses on observable physical and social environment and concentrates on observable and measurable behavioral-environment relationships (Jensen R. Behaviorism. In: Piotrowski N.A., editor. Magill’s Encyclopedia of Social Science: Psychology. Volume 1. Salem Press; Pasadena, CA, USA: 2003. pp. 239–243) ...
2.2. Inclusion Criteria ...The root word for behavior is behave. The OED etymology notes that behave formed in the 15th century from the prefix be-; plus have, which means “in order to express a qualified sense of have, particularly in the reflexive ‘to have or bear oneself (in a specified way)’.” ...
3. Results and Discussion... looked at terms like behave and comport. The terms identified as a part of the behavior family..., the OED was consulted for definitions ...
- Circa 1330 Port Bearing, deportment, or carriage, esp. dignified or stately bearing; demeanour or manner
- Circa 1440 Behave To bear, comport, or conduct oneself; to act
....
- 1891 Deportable Liable to, or punishable by, deportation
- 1895 Deportee One who is or has been deported
- 1913 Behaviourism A theory and method of psychological investigation based on the study and analysis of behaviour
- About 1927 Behavioural Concerned with, or forming part of, behaviour
- 1939 Interbehaviour
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC) (definitions were sourced from "behavior meaning", Chaney was sourced from "behaviour etymology" Diametakomisi (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC))
reason for error @ 20:54, 18 February 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)&oldid=941496797
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC) (deletion and change of heading description made after signature Diametakomisi (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC))
22:45, 18 February 2020 = re-made version >> 20:47, 18 February 2020 id=941479033 << because >> 20:54, 18 February 2020 id=941480106 (the next consecutive edit to 941479033) << the summary of 941480106 shows "added (the name of a source added to Bibliography)" but includes a change of >> 941479033 << to >>19:43, 18 February 2020 id=941469737 (the edit before 941479033 consecutively) <<
occurred because the Bibliography source was on an editorial screen prior to the save changing the introduction, so I inadvertently reverted the changes made to introduction by subsequently saving to the Bibliography not having changed the introduction
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
insights recorded without explanation on the subject (being the subject: Socrates)
the inline number as sources is the indication of where water originates from a spring, as river civilizations begin from a spring, and in the winter the mind concludes (as see-nile, becomes fulfilled with greece and desires Egypt) (in the winter is my discontent, in the spring content)
(words attached to this parentheses added as > signature not 11:25) Diametakomisi (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC) added destinate @ hyperlinked, the destinate is indicative of source not additionally expressive to the textual here, 1 minor change, separated signature with associate Diametakomisi (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC))
apollo άλογο
schools of thought schools of fish
lust for war (creative use of a sword because father stonemason and sculpture (in time not work) therefore singled out because of particular application of sword thrusts to penetration of males, as homosexual activities - c.f. sword s+word (italian negation)
Diametakomisi (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
fly flies, fish swims - air (Apology) and water (Meno) is similar by homogenity
Diametakomisi (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC) (addition to 11:25, 19 February 2020 after signature Diametakomisi (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC))
"schools of fish" (Meno) c.f. /me know/
"schools of flies" has no returns, because is not a phrase
Diametakomisi (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
instead ("steed") id=939177596 (here)
"<< bot >> /ate/ - h is the 8th letter" @ id=941586137 (article)
Diametakomisi (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"Trojan horse Socrates gadfly", insect eggs inside a horse, soldiers inside a horse
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC) - viewed p.88 of Eric Murphy Selinger (Google books) "..Gadfly in Greek is oistros, notes Arrowsmith.." Diametakomisi (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
On awakening to enlightenment (in a sect understanding):
a bee (in France a bee is abielle):
watt, A.B,C's?
grayed double ewe (twice), not A.D. (either), B.C.is the question and the answer isn't E-Z (neither) - eg CD
for example, in the mind of Socrates, for example, imaging what the universe is, it is like the ocean, vast and incrossable. This envisioning is perhaps true, but what the ocean is for the bee...How the B.C.'s the ocean?
Diametakomisi (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
removal of proposed deletion nomination 21:22, 20 February 2020
Proposed deletion/dated
|concern = Original research. The article knits together a variety of passages in Plato and the Bible in order to develop a novel interpretation of the influence of the gadfly concept. For example, the article claims that Ovid's reference to furor is a development of Plato's "gadfly" idea. In support of this claim, the article cites a chapter by Michael Naas and an article by Michael Erler — neither of which refers to Ovid. |timestamp = 20200220203758 |help =
the reason I removed the notification is because there is no way to delete the article, because it is an essential part of Socrates c.f. "Part of a series on Socrates" "I know that I know nothing" "The unexamined life is not worth living" gadfly · Trial of Socrates in the infobox to the right of the page of the article Socrates. The nominating user/editor should really think the correct procedure is simply to delete the relevant parts of the article, or to indicate every instance where he/she has identified the error in the article in Talk in order to resolve the problems.
Considering the example given by the nominating editor:
"...the article claims that Ovid's reference to furor is a development of Plato's "gadfly" idea. In support of this claim, the article cites a chapter by Michael Naas and an article by Michael Erler — neither of which refers to Ovid..."
I subsequently considered I must have made a mistake, because of tiredness of distraction where I edit
But on reviewing the article, I realized I'm not mistaken because the use of the sources that don't reference Ovid are permissable due to the fact of the gadfly as a motif in the literature of ancient greece and rome being used to express something which both Socrates and Ovid shared as an influence, being Homer, the ideas within the shared culture which gave rise to the idea of gadfly. For example, if the idea is from Homer and is an element of Olympian mythology (c.f. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1086075?seq=1), then the reference to earlier mythologies in Ovid is explicit, while in the speech of Socrates there is no reference to Olympian gods, he does mention a horse, which is therefore perhaps a link to Homeric idea (the Trojan horse). The nomination is based on a criticism of the failure to indicate the connection between the gadfly to Ovid to Plato, but this doesn't indicate a failure of fact, unless there are no sources which show any link, so the nomination isn't constructive, it is destructive, as the user nominating hasn't thought, since I don't own the article, there is no motivation in the nominating editor to contribute anything for locating sources or maintaining the article but deleting the perceived errors c.f. -Macrakis (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC) "Collaborative editing is a cornerstone of Wikipedia - the article doesn't belong to you or anyone else". How it isn't possible for the nominating editor to proceed to find anything all to contribute, or to find any other editor to contribute toward resolving the perceived failing. I can't consent to the nomination at this time in the development because I haven't seen yet if there are any sources which show furor (in Ovid) = madness (Socrates) isn't true, especially since there are sources which show madness is an element of Socratic philosophy, all that is lacking from the proof is showing Socrates associates the gadfly with furor.
There is no possible defence to the claim of error because the nomination only includes one example, the nominator didn't provide any other information on the possible failing of the article, which means there is no way to actually base any argument to the contrary on. Is the same as a kind of tyranny where wrong-doing (guilt) is presumed because the suspicion is raised in others minds, without sufficient evidence.
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC) (change to heading (added time of edit relevant to heading), and correction of typo after signature Diametakomisi (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC))
review of the article specifically after the description of proposed deletion - criteria to sourcing
"madness is Socratic thought and the gadfly":
http://www.iicdelhi.nic.in/writereaddata/Publications/636008075390394637_Occasional%20Publication%2072.pdf Ramin Jahanbegloo (no obvious relevancy to criteria + nomination)
(associate professors) Jonathan Allen Lavery, Louis Groarke, William Sweet Ideas Under Fire: Historical Studies of Philosophy and Science in Adversity, published by Rowman & Littlefield 2013 ISBN 1611475422, ISBN 9781611475425 p.15:
"...a gadfly's iconaclasm: there is touch of madness in these people.But it is not pathological irrationality we are faced with her. It is what Plato so aptly calls "divine madness" (see especially Phaedrus 244a and following)..."
Diametakomisi (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC) (2 minor correction after signature Diametakomisi (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC), 21:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC), correction to heading 21:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC))
- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hsoI7D62ywIC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=madness+gadfly&source=bl&ots=mKKHZ_8yH5&sig=ACfU3U0U4CfocArPkufB1OEHtvTyFRqgRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFtLW7i-HnAhXEURUIHYQtCWsQ6AEwB3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Socrates&f=false The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius by Debra Hershkowitz
- search internal to source Hershkowitz: "Socrates" 5 pages return, "gadfly" 6 returns, "Ovid" 7 returns
Kenneth Borris (Professor of English Literature at McGill University), published by Oxford University Press, 4 August 2017 Visionary Spenser and the Poetics of Early Modern Platonism :
"...In the Ion, speaking of Homer and all the good lyric poets, Socrates declares that "a poet is a light and winged thing, and holy"..in the Phaedrus...but if any man come to the gates of poetry without the madness of the Muses, then shall he and his works of sanity with him be brought to nought .."
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC), 1 minor correction after signature; 22:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC))
file:///C:/Users/dell/Downloads/file%20(1).pdf - Vincent T. Ciaramella - (May 7, 2015):
"a collection of nameless bards"
a, birds, flies (in flight)
(sourced @ "century Homer born")
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
oiseaux, mouche, vol
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
removal of heading and contents indicated within proposed deletion nomination for review
Ancient Roman
The poet - ref name=ḁ2020216/
Ovid, - Roman & Roman (2010) ISBN 1438126395, ISBN 9781438126395 - accessed 2020-02-16</ref>
born 43 B.C., - Niklas Holzberg (2002) — Ovid: The Poet and His Work, p.23, published by Cornell University Press 2002 - accessed 2020-02-16
used the idea - ref name=ả2020216 Luke Roman, Monica Roman (2010) — Encyclopedia of Greek and Roman Mythology, p.266, published by Infobase Publishing 2010 ISBN 1438126395, ISBN 9781438126395 (https://classics.stanford.edu/people/luke-roman) - accessed 2020-02-16 using "Zeus Io Hera gadfly" from:
http://www.gadflyonline.com/home - accessed 2020-02-03, http://gadflyonline.com/home/index.php/about-3/ published by Gadfly Productions - accessed 2020-02-03, re-accessed 2020-02-16
within book 1 of - ref name=ạ2020216/
the epic - Genevieve Liveley (2011) — Ovid's 'Metamorphoses': A Reader's Guide, p.8, published by Bloomsbury Publishing 24 Feb 2011 ISBN 1441100849, ISBN 9781441100849 - accessed 2020-02-16, from Jaclyn Neil (2017; 1st edition) — Early Rome: Myth and Society, pp.8-9, published John Wiley & Sons May 1 2017 ISBN 111908380X, ISBN 9781119083801 Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History - accessed 2020-02-16
- c.f.
- Neil (p.8): "Elegiac poetry differs from epic in both meter and typical subject matter..."
- Liveley (p.9):"..his elegiacally epic Metamorphosis.." (& p.3)
narrative - Collection items, published by the British Library - accessed 2020-02-16, re-accessed 2020-02-19
Metamorphoses, - ref name=ả2020216/
in which he substitutes the disturbing fly for furor - ref name=ạ2020216 Ovid's Metamorphoses, Books 1-5: Book 1 The Release of Io from Torment; Notes 724-31 (Io) by William S. Anderson (1997 reprint, revised) — p.219, published by University of Oklahoma Press 1997, ISBN 0806128941, ISBN 9780806128948 The American philological association series of classical texts - accessed 2020-02-16
(madness - NW Bernstein (2011) —Locus Amoenus and Locus Horridus in Ovid's Metamorphoses, p.68, published by The Wenshan Review of Literature and Culture in Volume 5.1 December 2011 - accessed & re-accessed 2020-02-16, Stephen Michael Wheeler (2000) — Narrative Dynamics in Ovid's Metamorphoses, p.62, published by Gunter Narr Verlag 2000, ISBN 3823348795, ISBN 9783823348795, Volume 20 of Classica monacensia : Münchener Studien zur Klassischen Philologie - accessed 2020-02-16
- c.f.
- Wheeler (p.62): "Ovid thus re-shape's Io's story...stems from self-horror rather than the sting...repeat's the theme of Io's fear and flight...Juno harrasses Io with a Fury (1.725, Erinys) and ..(726, stimulosque in pectore caecos).."
- William S. Anderson (p.219): "..substitutes a Fury for the gadfly.."</ref>)
which never-the-less is ultimately the same thing, - Michael Naas (2015; reprint) — p.49 "..The sting or goad of the gadfly...drives one mad..", of American Gadfly, in, Plato's Animals: Gadflies, Horses, Swans, and Other Philosophical Beasts (edited by Jeremy Bell, Michael Naas), published by Indiana University Press May 1 2015 ISBN 0253016207, ISBN 9780253016201 - accessed 2020-02-16, Michel Erler (2017) — Mania and knowledge. From the sting of the gods to Socrates as educational gadfly, published in the Journal of Educational Philosophy and Theory by Taylor and Francis (online) 8 December 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1373339 - accessed 2020-02-16
a literary expression of an idea, of torment sent by Olympian gods - John T Hamilton (2008) — Music, Madness, and the Unworking of Language, p.36, published by Columbia University Press May 6 2008, ISBN 0231512546, ISBN 9780231512541 Columbia Themes in Philosophy, Social Criticism, and the Arts - accessed 2020-02-16 - "...the other species of Olympian-sent sufferings, which on the whole are characterized by an attack from without..."
- c.f. Konstantinov SA, Veselkin AG (1989; subsequently translated to English) — The intensity and efficiency of a gadfly attack on cattle depending on the number and location of the animals in the herd, Parazitologiia 1989 January-February;23(1):3-10, PMID: 2524028, re-accessed 2020-02-16
Diametakomisi (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC) (signature not added at 1st save, added seconds after content saved here)
removal of heading and contents indicated within proposed deletion nomination for review
Bible
The Book of Jeremiah uses a similar analogy as a political[citation needed] metaphor: "Egypt is a very fair heifer; the gad-fly cometh, it cometh from the north" (46:20, Darby Bible).
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Identified directions possible for sourcing
(copied from insights without explanation)
signature for 2 headings not added 23:15, 20 February 2020 Diametakomisi (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
modern greek word for horse similar to apollo, ancient greek not
apollo άλογο
(not signed, was added Diametakomisi as signed section Diametakomisi (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC))
Apologetic
20:00 hrs Apology Apollo Diametakomisi (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC, spelling correction 23:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC))
log Diametakomisi (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
apollo a horse (the Trojan horse) - /see-men/ (save) Hell(en(d)
thought through the knight (mare)
Diametakomisi (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC), 1 minor change after signature, 1 change (added word "mare") 16:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC))
there is a school of fish and philosophy but no schools of flies
schools of thought schools of fish
fly flies, fish swims - air (Apology) and water (Meno) is similar by homogenity
Diametakomisi (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC) (addition to 11:25, 19 February 2020 after signature Diametakomisi (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC))
"schools of fish" (Meno) c.f. /me know/
"schools of flies" has no returns, because is not a phrase
Diametakomisi (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
there is a school of fish (Meno) and philosophy but no schools of flies (Apology, dies) Diametakomisi (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
words of language English suggests relevant meaning to greek - instead, both
instead ("steed") id=939177596 (here)
"<< bot >> /ate/ - h is the 8th letter" @ id=941586137 (article)
Diametakomisi (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Trojan horse contains soldiers, Socrates flies eggs inside Athens
"Trojan horse Socrates gadfly", insect eggs inside a horse, soldiers inside a horse
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
lust for war (creative use of a sword because father stonemason and sculpture (in time not work) therefore singled out because of particular application of sword thrusts to penetration of males, as homosexual activities - c.f. sword s+word (italian negation)
Diametakomisi (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
(deletion of 2 typo in heading Diametakomisi (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC), 23:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC))
criteria (time of url access does not coincide with signature):
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC), correction: addition or url to 2nd criteria (downward is progression) 23:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC))
On awakening to enlightenment (in a sect understanding)
a bee (in France a bee is abielle):
watt, A.B,C's?
grayed double ewe (twice), not A.D. (either), B.C. is the question and the answer isn't E-Z (neither) - eg CD
for example, in the mind of Socrates, for example, imaging what the universe is, it is like the ocean, vast and incrossable. This envisioning is perhaps true, but what the ocean is for the bee...How the B.C.'s the ocean?
Diametakomisi (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC) (1 minor correction after signature 16:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC))
under this heading not copied
epithet: Socrates boring
gadfly flies, bites (c.f. Kitchell Junior), lays eggs, eggs hatch, bore, boring, the whole thing boring, a Trojan horse
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
contrary (Meno)
a water drill (invented in Egypt), like a fish, drinks water, well, makes well(ness)
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Athens fleur
polloi
c.f. Allessandro Stavru (2018)
Diametakomisi (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
gad bee
polloi
Diametakomisi (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
words of language English suggests relevant meaning to greek - existing
existing
Diametakomisi (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
in sects (insects): eggs is sting me (existing), know (Meno) good:bad (gad)
Diametakomisi (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Diametakomisi (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
an insect is an insect, or not, a fly is a gadfly, horsefly et cetera - resourcing (after Macrakis (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020)
after p.91 Kenneth F. Kitchell Jr:
"..The name horsefly or gadfly covers a variety...in the family Tabanidae..."
Robert Leslie Usinger - 1963 https://www.google.com/search?q=insect+family+Tabanidae&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHlI7yp-HnAhVLh1wKHeCZCiEQ_AUoAXoECBgQCQ&biw=1920&bih=969 google books "...A catalog of the blood-sucking fly family Tabanidae (horseflies and deerflies) of the Nearctic region north of Mexico" - (comment of Diametakomisi: Socrates lived in Greece)
Diametakomisi (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
(comment of Diametakomisi (after Macrakis): the possibility the fly which was observed as the original idea (c.f. "gadfly in Homer": Brügger, (Olson editor) "Iliad 24" p.200) influence, is today extinct)
Diametakomisi (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC) (@Macrakis: 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC))
Current state of the article
I think this article has lost sight of the audience. Two months ago, it was a shallow but readable article that made sense to an ordinary reader. Now, I don't know what it is or what it's trying to be. The 116-word first sentence is excessively convoluted. Is the wall of Greek text necessary? Why do we care who first imported Plato's Apology to England?? The article makes an inexplicable tangent into Buddhism — why??? (The increasing number of question marks reflect my increasing frustration at trying to make sense of this article.) I know there's been a lot of effort put into this, but I find it basically unreadable. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you yes, the introduction is too convoluted, being too many words for 1 sentence (difficult to find a breath to take reading it I'm sure), I wanted to improve that factor, but I've been busy sourcing for content, the introduction is much improved from prior versions, and does communicate a synopsis of something meaningful to the reader (1)
- Although I'm currently the active user editing the article the contents isn't anything to do with me, because the changed article from the previous more readable version is due to sources information showing the meaning to the subject, from the position of professors. If you would like to verify for yourself, I think it is true that all the sources are professors, therefore the content is now including information that is more difficult to understand than the previous ordinary version, because; well considering every year a number of students arrive at each and every university in Europe to study philosophy and a great number graduate each year, but only very few become professors. Those few are the extraordinary individuals whose work have made the article non-ordinary. I think that is the reason you "don't know what it is or what it's trying to be" (2)
- "the wall of Greek text ..." is not strictly actually a wall, in the sense of Wikipedia:Wall of text, if we both were to think for a moment on the definition " excessively long", because, the term "Gadfly" is originating in the greek text, and although, in the English language, gadfly is one word only to convey, communicate the idea of something, in the greek original the idea isn't communicated in 1 word, it is communicated in the greek text shown (infact more than the greek writing shown, if you were to compare the length of the greek to the length of the English translation below it). Think for example of e=mc2, that is a somewhat difficult to understand equation, at least if no-one were to explain what the letters in the equation mean (i.e. e is energy, m is mass, c is speed of light). Even now it is quite difficult to see why the equation means anything, and how the simple equation we look at might be made simpler and easier to understand, and surely no-one wants overly complicated and made-too-difficult solutions to problems, when life has already problems in it of survival and living. But considering this for a moment (I don't agree that an "average person" cannot become a more than average person, by the way) https://endeavors.unc.edu/speaking-math/ "..Sometimes a single word acts as a powerful tool for communicating a whole world of knowledge..The average person understands the world through language — not numbers. So uncovering how the universe functions can get a little tricky..Drut’s research is so difficult because it resides in-between the worlds of physics and applied math.." (sourced using "the mathematics of e=mc2"), some things aren't actually possibly communicatable in any more simpler a language than the existing expression of the thing. Einstein did a great amount of mathematical work, but the only thing usually seen of all the mathematics leading to the solution is e=mc2 (3)
- caring "who first imported Plato's Apology to England" - the reason this was included is due to the fact of the following sequence (each person is temporal progression - a later time after the previous): Socrates > Plato > Aristotle et cetera > the writing of Plato arrives in England. In the original of Plato there is no word "gadfly", to explain "Gadfly", a subject of thought in an article in wikipedia, the article could provide the answer all in English, but as I mentioned in (3) "in the greek original the idea isn't communicated in 1 word" - so there isn't any way to discuss the idea without returning to the original, as the sources don't agree, additionally they all discuss the original (without exception), and so it is difficult to understand what they are discussing in reality unless a person is able to look at the original, that is (4)
- "inexplicable tangent into Buddhism" - the reason for the tangent isn't provable as necessary, except for the fact of Edmund Husserl (et al) "Socrates-Buddha" being "awaken":"awakening" (respectively) - the gadfly awakens the horse Athens (to knowledge): the prince Gautama Siddhartha awakens to knowledge
- being the same thing as:
- Diametakomisi (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
justifying an inexplicable tangent
"the use of question answer method of zazen in Zen Ch'an"
Diametakomisi (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
return of criteria:
p.91 (Nancy K. Stalker is the Soshitsu Sen XV Distinguished Professor of Traditional Japanese Culture and History in the Department of History at the University of Hawaii at Manoa)
21:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"religious awakening in Apology Socrates is rebirth, immortality" - religious awakening in Apology Socrates is rebirth, immortality after death
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1508497?seq=1 "The Immortality of Man was one of the fundamental creeds of the philosophical religion of Platonism that was in part adopted by the Christian church and that thus became one of the foundations of the Christian civilization of the Eastern and Western world..." in; Werner Jaeger - The Greek Ideas of Immortality: The Ingersoll Lecture for 1958 The Harvard Theological Review Volume 52, No. 3 (Jul., 1959), pp. 135-147
21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)