Talk:Gorgias

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Ancient Mid‑importance

This article 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Ancient philosophy

BC/BCE changes

Per WP:ERA: "No preference is given to either style" and "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."

The change from BC to BCE was made without presentation of a substantial reason for the change, nor a discussion in which a consensus for the change accepted by other editors. Therefore I support the recent restoration of the BC dates. Please present a "substantial reason for the change", and gain a consensus to make the change before restoring the BCE dates here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For BCE format. The change from BC to BCE was made on 2009-09-22T08:06:34 by an ip-editor with the comment "Corrected dates with reference to modern scholarly account" and referring to "Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd. ed. s.v. "Gorgias" (Oxford, 1996)". Note that (i) ip-edits tend to be made in good faith, (ii) ip-editors cannot realistically be assumed to check all relevant rules and policies, (iii) nobody objected to the format change which is tantamount to consensus and (ii) it seems best to follow scholarly standards. Hpvpp (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs comments refer to the numbers that he/she changed. Note that the guidelines don't give preference to any style for any reason, whether one reason claims to be more "scholarly" or not. You're point on it not being challenged is worthy of some consideration, but it doesn't override the others, nor does "ignorance of the rules" excuse those who are aware of them, as you're tying to do. There was in point of fact no "substantial" reason given for changing to BCE, and thus restoring the previous format is valid. Again, you're welcome to give a "substancial" reason, but "scholarly standards" aren't an acceptable reason - both formats are used by equal scholars. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As its been stable with no objections til now with the BCE/CE style, and has no connections to christianity, whats the big deal? It was stable with that version and should be reverted to that version with the CE usage. He iro 11:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Herodicus

The Herodicus who is native of Selymbria is not Gorgias' brother. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0092%3Asection%3D316e and http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0091%3Asection%3D448b —Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaChiaraP (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed picture

File:Gorgias.gif

I removed this picture of supposedly showing a "Sculpture of Gorgias", since it is, in fact, the bust of Plato in the Capitoline Museum. Pasicles (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Nihilist"

An IP is attempting to remove the statement that Gorgias is sometimes called "The Nihilist". I have found and supplied several sources to that effect, going back to the 1880s, and up until 2002. There is of course a debate about the degree to which this is a reasonable description and I think that today most philosophers do not consider it to be so (neither do I), but that does not mean that the other view disappears or can be brushed off as "conjecture". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That IP admits to not seeing the added references at the end of the introduction, and apologizes for repeated edits due to being unfamiliar with wikipedia editing practices. Said IP appreciates the addition of more sources and acknowledgement that the claim is a controversial one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D44:1970:BD30:755A:B81A:3EF4 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. The article certainly can be improved by adding more of the recent scholarship. But the accusation of Nihilism is a claim that is both frequently repeated and contested in the literature so the article has to include it. One recent article even calls him "the King of the Nihilists", whereas deeper engagements usually consider this to be the result of only a very superficial reading of his argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that nihilistic interpretations are important to include in the article, and that it is equally important to reflect the perhaps more dominant scholarly view that Gorgias' positive views are not to be read off of his argument in ONB.

Removed reference 17 since Caston actually denies that Gorgias is a nihilist rather than supporting the claim. Quote from Caston's article: "This question alone makes it implausible to think that Gorgias endorses a particularly dark form of nihilism, the result (as some would have it) of philosophical despair and world weariness. 1 Gorgias would have to be not merely disconsolate, but quite dull-witted, to have missed the conflict between his presentation and its content. Similar considerations put in doubt any attempt to take Gorgias as a kind of relativist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D44:1970:BD30:755A:B81A:3EF4 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should put it back since the fact that he defends Gorgias against the accusation shows that the accusation exists and is notable in the literature. If you want to you can summarize the debate about his alleged nihilism in the section, including Caston's argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the implication that Gorgias' philosophy is one of nihilism, since the only evidence is his work 'On Not-Being' (no such philosophy arises in any of his other extant writings, including the most well-known 'Encomium of Helen' and 'Defense of Palamedes' and that evidence is not trustworthy due to (a) the fact that his original text hasn't survived and (b) the likelihood that Gorgias was putting this argument forth partly as a parody of the likes of Parmenides, and was likely self aware of the self-undermining nature of his work, thus indicating that his goals in writing the text were more complex. In defense of this point, I added a reference to the current state of the secondary literature where this is a consensus against the 'nihilist' reading.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gorgias/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Quite obviously enough material here to bump up from stub status. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth and Death Dates

A couple months ago I gave more precise years of birth and death with this peer-reviewed source as a citation. It was later reverted as "dubious" and "unlikely". It was also described as contradicting the citation, but I do not see how.

With respect, I believe that a peer-reviewed resource (which is in agreement with other expert sources -- I can pull one off my shelf, if you'd like) should overrule the doubt of an editor. Is there any objection to un-reverting my edits? --73.13.242.253 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted further edits which make the unsourced claim that the given birth and death dates are imprecise. The date source gives no indication of this, and presents them flatly as fact. If there is a dispute in the scholarship, we should find a source which explicitly claims that these dates are not known. --73.13.242.253 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People keep making edits to suggest that these dates are only approximate. The page has a peer-reviewed citation giving precise dates -- online, so anyone can double check it and confirm this. Please stick to what the sources say. --73.13.242.253 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consigny Quotation

The quotation is missing its final quotation marks:

"perhaps the most elusive of the polytropic quarry hunted in Plato's Sophist.

Does the quotation go to the end of the sentence? Anyone also want to explain what polytropic means here? Why is there a hunt going on? Who's the hunter? 2603:7000:3902:B10A:5852:7E3A:8AC3:8E07 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]