![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please forgive my foolish ignorance, but isn't Ion talking about information entropy? Has anyone else thought this? ttiizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.92.56 ( talk) 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I question the point of view on this article. Perhaps it's all edits, but it seems like the author was more interested in defending Ion than examining Plato's Dialogue. If there is traditional animosity felt toward this dialogue from the theartrical community it's more than I know, but I'm sure some people would at least like to look at the broader purpose of the argument. Just a suggestion. Stephen Kinch 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephen, you don't need to be a thespian to find Socrates' point of view disparaging of human effort. Any artist or craftsman who reaches the top of his game has worked his ass off, and is unlikely agree that his achievements are attributable to divine intervention. Brenda maverick 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to toss my hat in the ring: What counts as "opinionated language" ? Words are not neutral counters. All words have connotations, all descriptions some degree of implicit POV. ?? Is it POV to say that any successful person is likely to have toiled and sweated in order to reach is achievements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.60.233.2 ( talk • contribs).
I'm coming to this article for the first time from a Request for Comment. The interpretation section of this article appears to me to be strongly opinionated, especially the first couple of sentences, which basically state that Plato was flat-out undeniably wrong. A critical interpretation of Plato ought to be in this article, but must be attributed to a verifiable source, rather than speaking with the voice of Wikipedia. PubliusFL 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the last section, it has no citations and wreaks of OR. I am very willing to be proven wrong by anyone providing citations for it. Sethie 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The final links do not lead to dialogues (the Republic, laws, Symposium etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.32.199 ( talk) 19:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The links to the various editions and translations of the text here should be integrating into the External links section. JKeck ( talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please forgive my foolish ignorance, but isn't Ion talking about information entropy? Has anyone else thought this? ttiizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.92.56 ( talk) 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I question the point of view on this article. Perhaps it's all edits, but it seems like the author was more interested in defending Ion than examining Plato's Dialogue. If there is traditional animosity felt toward this dialogue from the theartrical community it's more than I know, but I'm sure some people would at least like to look at the broader purpose of the argument. Just a suggestion. Stephen Kinch 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephen, you don't need to be a thespian to find Socrates' point of view disparaging of human effort. Any artist or craftsman who reaches the top of his game has worked his ass off, and is unlikely agree that his achievements are attributable to divine intervention. Brenda maverick 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to toss my hat in the ring: What counts as "opinionated language" ? Words are not neutral counters. All words have connotations, all descriptions some degree of implicit POV. ?? Is it POV to say that any successful person is likely to have toiled and sweated in order to reach is achievements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.60.233.2 ( talk • contribs).
I'm coming to this article for the first time from a Request for Comment. The interpretation section of this article appears to me to be strongly opinionated, especially the first couple of sentences, which basically state that Plato was flat-out undeniably wrong. A critical interpretation of Plato ought to be in this article, but must be attributed to a verifiable source, rather than speaking with the voice of Wikipedia. PubliusFL 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the last section, it has no citations and wreaks of OR. I am very willing to be proven wrong by anyone providing citations for it. Sethie 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The final links do not lead to dialogues (the Republic, laws, Symposium etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.32.199 ( talk) 19:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The links to the various editions and translations of the text here should be integrating into the External links section. JKeck ( talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)