Talk:Classical element/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Duplicate sections

Has anyone noticed that there are two sections on Ancient Greek beliefs? --66.96.225.78 (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's because it originally formed part of the introduction to the section on Ancient History, but was broken up in this edit. This is part of a larger problem of in this article of stiching together systems in disparate countries that may, or may not be related without any sources saying they are related. I've made this point before on this talk page. SpinningSpark 18:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Merged them. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: So not only have we lost the introduction to Ancient History section, we have also now lost the opening sentence ("In Western thought..."). The article has now entirely lost sny sense of "classical element" referring to the ancient Greek philosophers and that medieval (and modern) usage is directly descended from them. SpinningSpark 12:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence is now "The ancient Greek concept of four basic elements, these being earth (γῆ gê), water (ὕδωρ hýdōr), air (ἀήρ aḗr), and fire (πῦρ pŷr), dates from pre-Socratic times and persisted throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, deeply influencing European thought and culture." What was "the introduction to Ancient History section"? I don't think there was one. Maybe you should have done it yourself, instead of complaining how impossible it was (in an edit summary). Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

See the diff I linked at the beginning of this thread. SpinningSpark 14:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What about it? All that is there, in much more detail. As an "introduction to Ancient History section" it seems to repeat the lead too much. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain in detail what my objection is. Sources pretty much universally put the origin of the classical elements with Empodocles. This seems to have been a stitching together of ideas from earlier Greek philosophers where there was a debate over what was the basic element from which all other matter arose. Thales and other Miletians thought it was water, the one who threw himself into a volcano (whose name escapes me for the moment) thought it was fire. Empodocles put these together and came up with four elements. There are currently no sources in the article claiming he got ideas from anywhere else outside of Greece. It's perfectly possible he did; many of the Greek philosophers were widely travelled in Egypt and Babylonia. It's perfectly possible the idea filtered over from Persia, or even further back from the Vedic scriptures in India or China. But there are no sources whatsoever backing up any of that and their inclusion in this article. China in particlular does not bear any obvious relation to the classical elements.

Now I accept that you have retained all the factual information in your edits (I haven't checked everything in detail) but your changes are just the latest in a long series of reworks that have incrementally moved the focus of the article from where, in my opinion, it should lie. SpinningSpark 14:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Zoroaster and the four elements

Hello CycoMa! Regarding this: see for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Empedocles, who pioneered the influential four-part theory of roots (air, water, earth, and fire) along with two active principles of Love and Strife, which influenced later philosophy, medicine, mysticism, cosmology, and religion. Compare this with Habashi 2000, p. 110: The origin of the Four Element theory, however, seems to be Persian and not Greek. It was the Persian prophet Zarathustra [...] This Zoroastrian concept of four elements has a different perspective which makes more sense than the Aristotalian. Habashi also mentions Empedocles and Aristotle on p. 109 and notes that this is usually cited in history of chemistry books, citing J. R. Partington, and then complaining that Partington devoted only two pages to the earlier Persian philosopher Zoroaster and his religion. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the idea of four "sacred" elements is absent. Now we of course follow sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the number one reference work for history of philosophy) and Partington (one of the foremost historians of chemistry), not unknown authors who explicitly contradict them.

The above is the policy-based argument, and the following is merely supplemental: if you would like to know more, ctrl-f "pseudo-" on our page on Zoroaster: you'll find some info there on the many pseudepigraphic writings which were attributed to Zoroaster in the Hellenistic period. Attributing originally Greek ideas to Persian and Egyptian sages (see also, e.g., Ostanes, or Hermes Trismegistus) was a common practice at the time, and it is likely that this is were Habashi got his ideas from. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonic solids

@Darylprasad: thank you for introducing this important aspect into the article. However, I feel it needs heavily editing down into summary style. The most directly relevant aspect here is that the platonic solids were viewed as the "atoms" of the elements. This is what we should open with and state which solid was associated with each element. The extensive quotation from the source needs summarizing and a quote that long has copyright issues. The breakdown into triangles is a secondary to the topic of classical elements, and it may be peculiar just to Plato. That is, it is not mainstream and should not be given undue weight. SpinningSpark 09:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this section has several problems. First, it is not clear that what is covered in the section is a reworking of Plato's original theory, 800 years or more after the fact. We should first explain the theory of the Timaeus, and indeed in a way that makes it much clearer how this is an elemental theory, how or why Plato thought it likely (the mere likeliness of anything related to natural philosophy is something that should always be stressed with Plato) that things are composed of them (the sharp-pointedness of fire, the relative immobility of earthy cubes, etc.). It should also explain how Plato's theory relates to those of both Empedocles and Democritus. Then, as a much smaller addendum, we might add something about the exceedingly complex reinterpretations of this theory by the Neoplatonists. Still, that subsection should be written in a way that is comprehensible to the average reader. The current section is only readable to someone who already fully understands its contents, which is pretty useless from an encyclopedic point of view. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"The current section is only readable to someone who already fully understands its contents", yep, that's pretty much my point too. SpinningSpark 15:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark

@Apaugasma

Before I start , I would like to thank you both for taking the time to write to me. I have endeavoured to answer your questions below.

"platonic solids were viewed as the "atoms" of the elements"

This is mistaken if you are talking about Platonic or Neoplatonic philosophies. Both these philosophies strive to find essence. The essence of the Platonic solids are an isosceles triangle and an equilateral triangle as pointed out by Simplicius, Proclus and Taylor, and which is manifestly evident. Also they are called classical elements...not classical atoms. Saying "atoms of the elements" is confusing the Atomists with the Platonists, as they are only viewed as atoms by the Atomists.

"This is what we should open with and state which solid was associated with each element."

A reasonable suggestion.

"The extensive quotation from the source needs summarizing and a quote that long has copyright issues."

No it does not because the book was published in 1825 and the copyright has long since expired. With regards to a "summarizing" of the quote...be my guest, I am very busy reading Proclean philosophy and this is taking time away from that.

" The breakdown into triangles is a secondary to the topic of classical elements, and it may be peculiar just to Plato. That is, it is not mainstream and should not be given undue weight. "

Considering were are debating text that pertains to Platonic solids, the breakdown into right-angled triangles is highly relevant. The right angle triangle being of fundamental importance to the Pythagoreans and Platonists. These triangles are how and why the Platonic solids were created, specifically mentioned by Plato in the Timaeus. As to whether it is "mainstream", that depends on what river you swim in.

"it is not clear that what is covered in the section is a reworking of Plato's original theory, 800 years or more after the fact"

My response to this is that it is blatantly clear because the text starts with "In Neoplatonic philosophy"

"We should first explain the theory of the Timaeus,"

Good luck with that, it took Proclus 800 pages to try and do that. Similarly, volumes have been written about that book. It is not something you can just explain in one paragraph.

"and indeed in a way that makes it much clearer how this is an elemental theory, how or why Plato thought it likely (the mere likeliness of anything related to natural philosophy is something that should always be stressed with Plato) "

Well these discussions belong to an article on Platonic philosophy.

"that things are composed of them (the sharp-pointedness of fire, the relative immobility of earthy cubes, etc.). "

The sharp-pointedness of fire comes from the Platonic solid called the pyramid. The " sharp-pointedness" comes from the fact that it is made up of triangles, which have three sharp points. The "immobility of earthy cubes" comes from the Platonic solid called the cube and is manifestly different to the others because its essence is a right-angled isosceles triangle which does not relate to motion as much as an equilateral triangle which is the basis for the other shapes.

" It should also explain how Plato's theory relates to those of both Empedocles and Democritus."

Plato was vehemently opposed to Democritus' atomistic philosophy, so relating those two philosophies will be a struggle. The contraries fundamental to Empedocles philosophy are expanded upon by both Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophies.

"Then, as a much smaller addendum, we might add something about the exceedingly complex reinterpretations of this theory by the Neoplatonists."

The Neoplatonists simplified Platonic solids by finding their essences which was reconditely alluded to by Plato.

"Still, that subsection should be written in a way that is comprehensible to the average reader. "

Who is the average reader of Wikipedia? And the text has been written so that anybody with a High School (or Secondary school) education could understand it.

"The current section is only readable to someone who already fully understands its contents, which is pretty useless from an encyclopedic point of view"

I don't share this opinion, but will not try to change yours. The text only relies on basic comprehension, which is taught at Secondary schools.

Have a nice day.

Darylprasad (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The average reader is someone who, for example, does not know that Proclus lived 800 years after Plato. It's also someone who would benefit from a basic exposition of Plato's relatively simple views rather than from Proclus' reworking of those views. You seem to take the Neoplatonists' own claims that they were expounding the true philosophy of Plato on face value, but the scholarly view is rather that they developed an entirely new philosophy inspired upon Plato's ideas (see, e.g., here). Scholars regard Plato's elemental theory as a form of atomism: Plato viewed the triangles as indivisibles, and Aristotle explicitly named and compared Democritus and Plato as proponents of atomism (see the 'Plato and Platonist' section in the 'Ancient Atomism' article of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

It's of course great that you are studying Proclean philosophy, but it seems that you would benefit from reading more secondary literature. I only now noticed that the section you added is entirely based on one primary, non-independent source (Thomas Taylor, an 18th-century Neoplatonist). Writing sections based upon such a source is original research, which again in itself is a great thing, but which is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

On the lengthy quotation, my primary concern is WP:NOFULLTEXT rather than copyright. But thanks for pointing out that it is out of copyright, I had not noticed the date. SpinningSpark 17:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@ SpinningSpark

Well, thankyou for the quick response. Here are my thoughts.

"The average reader is someone who, for example, does not know that Proclus lived 800 years after Plato. It's also someone who would benefit from a basic exposition of Plato's relatively simple views rather than from Proclus' reworking of those views."

You seem to have an idea of an average reader of Wikipedia. Where do you get that idea from? Do you have marketing information available, if so please share it as we would all like to know who the average reader of Wikipedia is.

You seem to take the Neoplatonists' own claims that they were expounding the true philosophy of Plato on face value, but the scholarly view is rather that they developed an entirely new philosophy inspired upon Plato's ideas.

Well that depends on what "scholars" you are referencing. There are many scholars that do not hold the above opinion, Taylor, and Inge being two of them.

"Scholars regard Plato's elemental theory as a form of atomism: Plato viewed the triangles as indivisibles, and Aristotle explicitly named and compared Democritus and Plato as proponents of atomism"

Again, you refer to "scholars" as a general group. I'm sure all don't share the same opinion. There are many scholars who do not share the view that Plato's elemental theory is a form of atomism"

It's of course great that you are studying Proclean philosophy, Thanks for that.

"but it seems that you would benefit from reading more secondary literature. I only now noticed that the section you added is entirely based on one, non-independent source, an 18th-century Neoplatonist). Writing sections based upon such a source is original , which again in itself is a great thing, but which is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia."

How is Taylor a non-independent source? And how is Taylor not a secondary source when he makes comments on the source material? The text is also in Simplicius and when I have the time I will put it in, which can be found, when I have the time. And there are some entries here that don't even have a reference, like that under Japan and others that have only one. Will you be deleting them as well? Seems like you have subjective reasoning process when it comes to applying your own criteria.

"On the lengthy quotation, my primary concern is rather than copyright. But thanks for pointing out that it is out of copyright, I had not noticed the date." Yes it does do well to read the entire citation before stating a case against it.

If you applied that criteria to this article, there would be a few topics that could be immediately deleted, Like "Japan" which does not contain a reference. "Western astrology" which has one reference. "Medieval Aristotelian philosophy" which has one reference. The entire unreferenced second paragraph. All those could be deleted immediately. Why haven't you applied the same criteria to them?

I have applied your criteria to the article and removed those paragraphs without a reference. Thanks for the suggestion.

Darylprasad (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My appraisal of the average reader is based on common sense. The scholarly view I'm referencing is the one summarized by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. We follow prominent and authoritative sources like that. Simplicius is a primary source. Neither Proclus nor Simplicius nor Taylor are regarded as authoritative sources on Wikipedia: we follow modern, scholarly sources only. Proclus, Simplicius and Taylor are not independent on the subject of Platonism because they were themselves Platonists. They are also outdated. Please refrain from adding text based on your own analysis of such primary sources. Finally, please also do not edit Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"My appraisal of the average reader is based on common sense."

What your opinion is of common sense is not shared by others. That's common sense.

The scholarly view I'm referencing is the one summarized by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I am sure there are many scholars who would disagree with that view. And since when did the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" have a mortgage on "The Scholarly view?"

"Neither Proclus nor Simplicius nor Taylor are regarded as authoritative sources on Wikipedia. Proclus, Simplicius and Taylor are not independent on the subject of Platonism because they were themselves Platonists"

Really? So some of the greatest Neoplatonic philosophers are not regarded as authorities on Neoplatonic philosophy. So, for example, we can't quote Einstein when writing about physics because he himself was a physicist. That argument does not make sense. By the way, where is this list of authoritative sources on Wikipedia?

"on Wikipedia: we follow modern, scholarly sources only"

Again, do you mean that in all of Wikipedia, we as editors can only quote modern scholars...I don't think so. By the way, if that is the case, what is Wikipedia's definition of "Modern"

"Finally, please also do not edit Wikipedia to illustrate a point"

Again, why are there so many unreferenced paragraphs in this article? It seems all those are original research and trying to illustrate a point.

Your arguments are not reasonable nor logical.

Darylprasad (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)