Philosophy: Ancient Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Associated task forces: /  Ancient philosophy

Classical Greece and Rome Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

• First: Change name to to "Hellenistic philosophy", so as to better cover Roman-era philosophers as well as Greek
• Second: Add section a section on concepts (a là Chinese & Indian philosophy templates.
• Third: Add section on major philosophers, separating them from the schools.

Thoughts? Dan Cottrell (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prelimary list: Nous, Doxa, Logos, Arche, Apeiron (cosmology), Henosis, Demiurge, Episteme, Katalepsis, Apatheia, Ataraxia, Adiaphora, Epoché. Additions? Substractions? Dan Cottrell (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to add these concepts and a few major philosophers. I would still love input. Dan Cottrell (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carchasm, those are some awfully major changes you've implemented. A discussion seems warranted. Teishin (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how you can claim that the Peripatetic school is Hellenistic and not Socratic.

Philosophy in this era is usually classified by when it originated, not when particular philosophers in those traditions lived.

We seem to have an established practice of listing all of the philosophers we have articles about. Judging who is most important makes things more difficult. Teishin (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is an established practice I'll certainly defer to prior consensus here, but I'd note that the list as it was before is certainly not every philosopher we have an article on - a lot of the presocratic philosophers who have Dielz-Kranz numbers and articles about them are certainly missing, and I'm sure there are others in the other sections. I wouldn't want to infer the established practice though - was this ever discussed by any of the relevant wikiprojects, that you're aware of? Even so, WP:NAVBOX suggests that only philosophers who have a given navbox on their page should be listed in the navbox, which wasn't the case here. While that might justify adding the navbox to those pages, I'd like to state that it's clear that this template hasn't been regularly maintained, which I think justifies taking WP:BOLD action to improve it.

I'd also caution against being overly cautious or change-averse here - it certainly merits discussion if you disagree, but a lot of articles on this topic were imported in via Britannica and have not seen any major revisions since, so if your only objection is that the changes are major I think it's best to revert back to what I had - a maintained list is certainly better than one that's been let adrift. - car chasm (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carchasm I don't have a complaint about engaging in WP:BOLD here. Just now that it's been done I see a number of things that seem to me to be issues.

It's true that in the area of ancient philosophy we have quite a few pages that are little changed from the 1911 Britannica and we just haven't had editors interested in them enough to improve them. I'm just concerned here about subjective evaluations.

It's also true that how to organize this material thematically and chronologically is disputed on several issues. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have organized this the way it had been, but it's also true that there are more-or-less "received" ways to do it, although these tend to have some internal inconsistency. (N.b., I follow some ancient doxographers whose major divisions were Early/Physicists, Classical, and Hellenistic - although not with those terms. And, Democritus is Classical, not Pre-Socratic. Hellenistic and Classical are subdivided between Socratic and Democritean. This is not, however, a generally received view these days due to the influence of Plato's view.)

On Peripatetic, I normally see it classified as Socratic or Classical. OTOH, it is listed among philosophies active during the Hellenistic era, but then that requires all of the other Socratic/Classical philosophies to be listed as well, which is a much different organization than before or proposed.

Re Roman, while for chronological purposes such a designation is useful, Roman era philosophy was simply a continuation, not a classification, except within Stoicism as there were meaningful differences between the Greek and Roman era versions of the philosophy. I not only don't think it is a useful categorization, my observation is that it is seldom used except in chronological narratives.

I suggest replacing Socratic (on the template both before and after changes) with "Classical" linking to Ancient_Greek_philosophy#Classical_Greek_philosophy Teishin (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that we need to do subjective evaluations, but I am worried about putting too much weight on ancient doxographers - WP:V is a content policy so we need to make these sorts of decisions based on the consensus of reliable secondary sources, and not try to interpret people like Diogenes Laertius ourselves. Democritus, for example, is a pre-socratic philosohper in every scholarly source since Dielz-Kranz - this isn't really up for negotiation on here unless you can point to reliable academic sources that say differently.

I have to say I'm a little concerned here that you're interpreting ancient sources yourself. Even if you feel that you have the expertise to do so, you should really find academic sources that back up your conclusions. - car chasm (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carchasm, it is you who has engaged in WP:BOLD here, not me. Just because I happen to mention parenthetically, in the context of the various ways that this material is typically organized, that I personally prefer one of the less-used organizations, it should be noted that I have made many edits to this template over the years and at no point have I ever implemented the organization I personally prefer, nor did I present it here as a proposal. I presented it in the context of pointing out that there are several ways this material gets organized, as part of an explanation about distinctions between "Socratic" and "Classical" and "Greek" and "Roman" as a way of outlining key elements of the organizational issues here. So, I am more than "a little concerned" that you should be criticizing me here for "interpreting ancient sources myself" for such a parenthetical comment while simultaneously ignoring the actual issues I raised, particularly so by adding the claim that "every scholarly source since Dielz-Kranz" does it such-and-such way apparently oblivious to the fact that this categorization is controversial, as attested in our very own article on the subject Pre-Socratic_philosophy#Terminology. The IEP says so, too https://iep.utm.edu/presocra/ . So, I suggest you not entrench yourself with claims such as "this isn't really up for negotiation".

So, let's talk about the Peripatetics. Classifying them as "Hellenistic" seems idiosyncratic for a template where the other choice is "Socratic." Would you care to justify that? Teishin (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Teishin: - I agree with what you proposed on the peripatetics - I checked in A.A. Long's Hellenistic philosophy and it notes that by 272 BC, the peripatetic school was essentially defunct - so they excluded it from that volume. Renaming "socratic" to "classical" seems to be the best way to prevent confusion: I haven't encountered a source that calls Aristotle "socratic" (though there probably are some) but we agree he is "classical" and I have no doubt we can support that with citations of there's disagreement. But I'm making this decision based on what reliable sources say. The IEP - as you cited, also does concede that democritus is considered pre-Socratic, and that detail about him only being born about a year before socrates is a thing that should probably be on his page if it's not already. The Loeb classical library even categorizes socrates himself as an "early greek philosopher" along with all the pre-socratics, but I think that "pre-socratic" is going to win any debate based on WP:COMMONNAME there. I followed Loeb in my organization of those, which I think i put in my edit summary.

But in general, I'd say I'm going to insist on citation of sources for everything discussed here. Most of the information on pre-socratic philosophy was copied from 1911 Britannica or other sources. As someone with a copy of the Loeb, as well as the oxford and cambridge companions, I can assure you that WP:BOLD is the right general approach here - basically everything wikipedia has on this whole field of study is terribly out of date, misleading, wrong, immoral, fattening, etc. If you don't have any non-open access sources, I agree IEP and SEP are (usually) fine for validation of facts as well, and usually written by the people who wrote the secondary sources. I do rarely encounter articles there that appear the author had a bone to pick with the subject, but that can be handled as it happens.

The idea of splitting Classical into "Socratic" and "democritean" though seems to be fairly original - I don't think there's much room at all for "following ancient doxographers" unless that's what the "received" view is. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion and interpretation on anything, I just don't think that belongs on a discussion about wikipedia content: it distracts from the main point which is that we should reflect the verifiable academic consensus from published, reliable secondary sources. This is the reason for my initial stubbornness here - if you're willing to drop your own personal interpretations at least for the purposes of discussion I'm much more willing to negotiate based on what the actual academic consensus is.

I can find more sources on Roman vs Hellenistic but I think there's more division there based on practicality in the sources I've seen - Hellenistic vs. Roman or Hellenistic vs. Late Antique. It's not like pre-Socratic where the sources do it the same way even if they grumble over the name "pre-socratic" - car chasm (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I'm trying to point out is that major elements of whatever classification scheme used here are contested. The idea that one can find some "reliable source" that's going to settle this matter is a fool's errand.

I don't get why you are so attached to critiquing my parenthetical comment about an alternative way "Classical" has been subdivided. It may strike you as original because you don't concern yourself much with Democritean philosophy, but we have ancient sources that follow this classification and we have modern discussions on the treatment of Democritean thought that point this issue out. I just brought up the point to underscore that all possible classification schemes are contentious. I further take issue to being chastised for simply pointing this matter out by way of example. Quoting you: "I just don't think that belongs on a discussion about wikipedia content: it distracts from the main point which is that we should reflect the verifiable academic consensus from published, reliable secondary sources."

As for the Peripatetics, while it's true that the Peripatetic school became defunct at one point, it was later revived. Dealing with this matter is one of the problems of organizing chronologically versus thematically.

Sorry, but having seen your WP:BOLD here and elsewhere appear all of a sudden, I don't find your assurances that "that WP:BOLD is the right general approach here - basically everything wikipedia has on this whole field of study is terribly out of date, misleading, wrong, immoral, fattening, etc." Quite frankly, I'm concerned, as it implies that everyone else who has been editing here is wildly incompetent. Teishin (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Teishin: You are certainly free to come to your own conclusions on competence - but most of the information I encounter appears to be unchanged from 1911 Britannica. I wouldn't consider anyone incompetent for assuming that things were correct then, but as I have access to more recent scholarship, I can observe that it is in fact, not correct and should be updated. In general any article that isn't GA or FA or at least headed there does tend to be rather inaccurate, on all of Wikipedia. I see you've been here a while - so maybe you need to refresh yourself on how the core content policies are stated? I'm sure I'm not making controversial statements here when I say that we should follow the academic consensus. For classification schemes, there certainly is academic consensus - and it mostly tends towards considering every philosopher separately within an era, and splitting the philosophers into specific groups based on era and location. These are all well supported by academic sources. Your assumption that because classification is difficult, that there is no verifiable consensus that can be cited, is inaccurate. If you want to contribute to wikipedia you should add information based on comparison of reliable sources. This is not a "fool's errand" - non-original research from reliable academic sources is exactly what editing wikipedia is about. - car chasm (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've WP:BOLDLY reduced the number of entries on this template, keeping all of the philosophers who were actually linked to it currently, along with the main philosophers in each school on it. This should make the template much easier to navigate - car chasm (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carchasm (talk · contribs) Let me try and explain here the use of including an Italian school branch for organizing this ancient philosophy navbox's pre-socratics. For one, while it may not have contemporary scholarly support, it at least has traditional support, being found in some form in Laertius. Secondly, it would have Hippo as categorized - though he is little known, his locations associate him with Pythagoras or Italy (which I forgot to add). Third, it would categorize Pythagoras, rather than misleading by having Pythagoras before Thales. Fourth, either it or a Pluralist category would categorize Empedocles, who is the most awkward to not have in either as if he were such a detached radical like Heraclitus is sometimes assumed. Add Metrodorus to those categorized if the pluralists are added, which seems natural, even if there's that tension for making Anaxagoras seem like a detached radical rather than a member of the Ionian School. Surely there is somehow to note both that one is Italian and the other Ionian, but both were pluralists. Add Xeniades to those categorized if there is an Italian school category. All that would be left would be Pherecydes of Syros, who could perhaps be in a proto-philosophy or pre-philosophy category along with say the Seven Sages or with Epimenides of Crete. I oft wonder why Thales gets the title rather than Epimenides, and Eubulides the title of inventor of the Liar rather than Epimenides, though it's one where I trust there is a good reason. The rest of it seems to me seems quite unobjectionable and doctrinaire. One could perhaps add a "socratic school" to have Socrates be categorized, as well as perhaps the likes of Xenophon, or Alcibiades, or Glaucon, but that might be too much, and he is the transitional figure. The Pythagoreans probably deserved a "more..." and one could add more sophists. It seems to me one could clearly visually show Thales and the Ionians were first (it also seems to me the Milesians should be separated) but it fails to do so. It also seems to me the connection between Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Xenophanes, even if speculative, is lost. And so on. Cake (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In other words, I propose what is in the linked edit. Plus Hippo to be in the uncategorized Italians (like Xenophanes), and the Pluralists to be further subdivided into Ionian (for Anaxagoras and followers) and Italian (for Empedocles and followers: Acron if it be objected to as otherwise empty). If Pherecydes of Syros is to be kept, I propose a proto or pre category (pre-pre-socratic?) and it could include the Seven Sages and Epimenides so as not to be otherwise empty. Plus, perhaps that makes sense for Thales to be on there twice, or at least referenced twice (depending on whether the Seven are listed individually). Everyone is categorized that way, and in a way useful and traditional. It seems to me that is just a much cleaner filing cabinet, regardless of what historical objections there are, and I can't imagine any that good. Cake (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, part of the problem is that Xenophanes isn't Italian, he's an Ionian along with Heraclitus. But more generally I'm opposed to using Diogenes Laertius as a means of determining how we should organize the pre-Socratic philosophers, because that's generally the thing he was worst at, and forcing every philosopher to have been the teacher or student of another famous philosopher is just completely wrong. Additionally, Empedocles and Anaxagoras are nothing alike at all, grouping them together in a "Pluralist" school was an early 20th century mistake by scholars who were too eager to arrange everyone into schools and successions.

I agree that we should use some sort of standard, though. Why don't we use the Diels-Kranz numbering system? It's somewhat out of date, but much more recent than Diogenes Laertius (who as an ancient source, technically isnt a WP:RS at all) - car chasm (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me Xenophanes is a paradigm Italian pre-socratic philosopher. Note his place of death. Aristotle identifies him as the founder of Eleatic philosophy. The skeptics too saw him as the original member of their ranks, and Zeno of Elea as another, and hence Xeniades too a follower. He was Ionian only in origin, like Pythagoras, the other founder of Italian philosophy. It seems to me original research to say things like Empedocles and Anaxagoras aren't similar. I see my proposal as following very naturally from what was already there. I'm not trying to do anything other than let it organize itself, as one does as they write an article. Diels-Kranz numbers would seem to me another navbox - a Diels-Kranz navbox, and the numbers are the fifth edition (or something), and differ in the other editions. It seems to me one should not bicker with Laertius or Aristotle just to make a mess of categorizing the Pre-Socratics, given they are so shrouded in mystery and long ago. Cake (talk)

Here is a sandbox with exactly what I am proposing - leaving no philosopher uncategorized, and nothing out of the ordinary. The proto part can be dumped for all I care, but in order to keep Pherecydes, and it's neat. Cake (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One further proposal I will add to the above is to make Heracliteans a group, with Heraclitus listed first, as well as Cratylus. Doing the same with Xenophanes and Xeniades - perhaps grouped as Skeptics, would look good. Leaving Hippo as uncategorized but for being Italian, and Diogenes (of Apollonia) uncategorized but for being Ionian, and they seem to uniquely deserve the vaguery. I think the classical and hellenistic sections are quite good, and this would put the pre-socratic on their level. Cake (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, not willing to budge on bickering with Laertius. I think you will find WP:SCHOLARSHIP helpful, note that "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

Using Laertius as a source is a violation of the WP:NOR policy, which is an absolute non-starter. Based on the rest of the content of your posts here, it seems like you may have been unaware of this? But none of the information in ancient primary sources should be taken for granted as true, it must have support from secondary sources, ideally ones written somewhat recently. - car chasm (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only specific objections "carchasm" has offered before threatening that I should be banned for offering an edit on a navbox is

1) That the "Italian school" was not a formal school, perhaps more of a useful fiction. I responded that it was my understanding more than just the Italian school was a useful fiction, and that it means something more like "schools of thought" rather than necessarily a location with a building as a school. It doesn't seem to me like we know with any confidence Anaximander was a student of Thales rather than some guy who had heard about him, and the same for most other followers, and the more so the further one goes back in time. Of course there are those who even doubt Socrates's existence. One can see from the articles, Xeniades is probably two different people, and Hippo might be as well. And on the contrary, it seems to me adding the Italian group as in the sandbox does a good job of showing the relation of Pythagoras, Xenophanes, and Parmenides, which seems less than student-teacher, and more than negligible.

2) That Empedocles and Anaxagoras shouldn't be classed as pluralists, as wikipedia has them in articles, which is the epitome of original research. Again the objection seems to be that they didn't have a meeting place.

3) That Laertius and Aristotle are primary sources on the Pre-Socratics - they are by definition secondary sources whenever they aren't quoting. If they were primary sources, they would be pre-socratics, nor would they be able to be biased. They were secondary sources who were at least also ancient philosophers, rather than contemporaries even more distant in space and time from the source material. I believe it was Nietzsche who abandoned a project writing a series about Diogenes Laertius's sources, such as Apollodorus and Theophrastus, which of course couldn't exist as a project if he were a primary source.

When these are properly ignored (around those three meager claims has been paragraphs of whining), it is clear this is an improvement, and what the prior editors have done to the navbox suggests be done. It simply categorizes more philosophers than the navbox in its current state, proving its utility. Cake (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All ancient sources are primary sources. If you are confused about this I recommend you not edit articles related to history. - car chasm (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very silly thing to say. A history of philosophy or a series of biographies such as doxography is a secondary source regardless of its sell-by date, and Laertius is the oldest extant history of philosophy. The weakness of having an Ionian category but no Italian category is perhaps best illustrated by having Xenophanes and Xeniades separated. The same can be said for Empedocles being relegated to unknown status like Hippo or barely-even-philosophy like Pherecydes. A simple acknowledgement of the geography suffices, it doesn't need to be a formal school. Both exist as constructs of ancient history and sources like Laertius or Aristotle, and mentioning this is not uncritically endorsing it, nor is it somehow both original research and old fashioned to do so. Cake (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cambridge Encyclopedia (1961) article backs up that the reason to criticize Diogenes's reliability is because he is a tertiary source, a compiler of secondary sources - much as this encyclopedia. Indeed like when he recalls Plato's life he gets bogged down in repeating sources. Further, the Italian School article is now well-sourced (probably comes from Sotion hence it has a "succession") - and the entire reason to even have Pherecydes as a philosopher is his legendary role as founding father of the Italian school rather than Thales like the Ionian school. And the Pre-Socratic article itself goes over the pluralists with the usual chacterization, i. e. Anaxagoras and Empedocles responding to Parmenides, who was an Italian school response to the Ionian monists. So, the navbox would be better if not for Carchasm's stubbornness. Cake (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a change of topic and charitably assuming the real issue is making the navbox like this breaks the visual symmetry, should the Second Sophistic be added to the Hellenistic part? As of course the article indicates, it is as much or more so a literary movement than a philosophical movement as such. Then again, it has writers among it oft seen as philosophers a part of some kind of neo-sophist school, which seems to me to give it the name. As also of course the article says, such as Lucian of Samosata. Not a big deal if it's excluded and considered strictly speaking a literary movement or whatever, but it would not break the visual symmetry, and just seemed to me the one missing type of Hellenistic philosopher with whom I was (ever so slightly) familiar. Cake (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]