Talk:Hellenistic philosophy

Cynics etc.

Keepcalmandchill Would you care to discuss here your edits which depart from the status quo ante and which I have continuously needed to revert? Teishin (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If you revert, then you are the one who should explain why, as per WP:REVERT Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I did explain why. Besides, you are the one who repositioned the article from what it had been. Teishin (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation is that the Cynics were in the wrong section. I have rectified this by changing the section names, even though you have not actually provided any source saying the Cynics are Classical period. The classification of the Cynics, the Skeptics, the Stoics and the Epicureans as the 'main schools' of the period is supported by two books written by philosophy professors. Furthermore, they also share fundamental features (also sourced) which is why they should be in the same section so that these similarities can be discussed in one place. The remaining schools can be divided into the new sections I have added, one for less significant pre-existing schools, and one for the religiously motivated ones, which together cover all. Otherwise I can just delete them since none are properly cited. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If you need a "source" to explain to you that while Socrates' student Plato, and Plato's student Aristotle, are in the Classical period, but you question that Socrates' student Antisthenes and the later Cynic Diogenes, who famously met Alexander the Great -- whose death marks the terminus of the Classical period -- are not in the Classical period, you do not know enough about this subject matter to edit it. Teishin (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The 'Classical period' is so-called due to its significance, and hence covers the trifecta of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and not other, less-significant contemporary thinkers. But I still accommodated you by changing the sections so that they do not imply that Cynics are not Classical. So what is the problem? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The Classical period refers to a period. It is not so-called due to its significance but due to the time period. If it wasn't due to the time period it would have another name. Teishin (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, it just does not matter. My modifications to the article would make this a non-issue here. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

By "main schools" what the source means is that during this period of time these schools have sizable numbers of adherents. Such a comment no more means that Christianity is modern because it has more adherents than it had in late antiquity. Teishin (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think those two sources say that, since there is no mention of followership anywhere near that section in either. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What, then, do you think "main" means? Teishin (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Grayling doesn't say 'main', he says 'notable'. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What, then, do you think "notable" means?Teishin (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That it had great influence? Does the word 'notable' mean 'big' to you? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

See my original point. Substitute "notable" for "main." It makes no difference. Teishin (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Notability is about influence, not size. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So you don't think size and influence have any relationship and you cannot make sense about such a relationship? Teishin (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna suggest the same compromise as in Western philosophy: Cynic thinkers that flourished before Aristotle's death go under the pre-Hellenistic section, while a discussion about the tenets of the school in relation to the other ones goes in the main section. I also think that separating the religious schools makes sense, as does referring to the other ones as 'main schools' (as they currently are) and including a discussion about their shared themes, but am willing to listen to reasons why that shouldn't be. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A separation of schools as "religious" would be contentious. Stoicism and Epicureanism, for example, have extensive theologies (see for example the discussion of these in 'De Natura Deorum'). Similarly, a classification of "main" opens up potentially contentious and subjective classifications.Teishin (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but is the rest of the suggestion acceptable to you? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In the Pre-Hellenistic section the section on the Cynics needs to be revised to make it more stylistically compatible with the other schools. There's also some inaccuracy about ataraxia in the existing copy. Platonism also should be included. Teishin (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, but I assume it will be okay to cover Cynics in the main section as well in comparison with the other schools. But I will do this later when I'll add more material on those other schools to the article. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to cover the Cynics in the main section, why not go back to the way the article was structured prior to your first changes on 8 July 2020? Teishin (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me, I did not add the 'pre-Hellenistic' section, that was you. I am fine by just having each school of thougght given its own section from the get go. Keepcalmandchill (talk)

I had to add a pre-Hellinstic section because you removed all of the Classical period schools that were active in the Hellenistic period because they were Classical. I'm fine with going back to how the article was structured prior to 8 July. Teishin (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ 207.213.211.47 (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

N.b., I just made several edits where I mention the source does not support the claim. After a few of these I realized that Libgen erroneously gave me Adamson's other 2015 book on Greek philosophy "Classical Philosophy." I will recheck all of these edits.Teishin (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The claim re ataraxia on p. 15 is indeed not there. Teishin (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The claim based on pp8-9 looks to be a rather loose interpretation of what the source was discussing. Teishin (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Article: “Socrates' thought was therefore influential for many of these schools of the period, leading them to focus on ethics and how to reach eudaimonia (the good life), and some of them followed his example of using self-discipline and autarky to this end.”

Source: “As these Hellenistic schools competed to be the true heirs of Socrates, they adopted a broadly Socratic stance on the fundamental purpose of philosophy. We do find these thinkers speculating about logic, the universe, and the divine. But for all of them, philosophy centrally concerned the question of how to live. Ethics became a central preoccupation in the Hellenistic period, as it had been for Socrates. The Hellenistic schools also shared a devotion to Socrates’ ideal of self-control and self-sufficiency.”

Which part is loose? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The schools following Democritus did not hold up Socrates as a role model. Epicureans such as Colotes were hostile to Socrates. Pyrrhonists such as Timon ridiculed Socrates. The Hellenistic schools did not share devotion to Socratic thinking. Besides, these ideals of self-control and self-sufficiency are not Socratic. They long predate him. See Delphic maxims.Teishin (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Then you can add those qualifications with sources. Since you haven't demonstrated how I have loosely interpreted the source's claims, I will reinstate the content. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Such things should not be necessary if the claims being introduced were accurate. Teishin (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The claim based on p5 imputes a firmer claim than the author makes. Indeed, the author said: "This is often defined as the time beginning with the death of Alexander the Great, in  BC, and ending wherever the historian you’re talking to decides it should end," Teishin (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No such claim to be found on p10.Teishin (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The relevant quote is: “In common with other Hellenistic schools, the Cynics’ highest aim was freedom from disturbance and imperturbability, in Greek ataraxia and apatheia.”, meaning everything they did was to that end.Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not in agreement with the content on our own Cynicism_(philosophy). You won't find "ataraxia" or "apatheia" on that page. "Ataraxia" is almost strictly in use only with Pyrrhonism and Epicureanism, with rare mentions from Stoics, usually in Latin as "tranquilitas". "Apatheia" is pretty much strictly a term used in Stoicism. See our own ataraxia and apatheia for details about these terms.Teishin (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Other parts of Wikipedia should not be used as the basis for what to include, or the whole encyclopedia just becomes circular. The practice is to rely on outside authoritative sources. However, I'm willing to let this one go, since it's not an important bit. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Where did you find that rule? Besides, if you're going to make claim X here and it is contradicted in some other article, why are you not addressing the article in which it is contradicted? You'll find editors whose expertise on those more narrow articles to be greater than what you'll find here on such summary articles. Teishin (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR. I do not have time to edit every single article on Wikipedia. This talk page is about this article, what other articles say or don't say is irrelevant here. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No, not WP:CIRCULAR. That's about using other Wikipedia articles as sources. What I'm pointing out is that our own articles that expand on these philosophies contain outside sourced authoritative content that contradicts the content you are adding. My repeated concern is that erroneous information is being added, and this is most certainly not irrelevant. While of course you do not have time to edit everything, it would seem that at minimum editors should be familiar with the content of the articles to which they are linking and to ensure that the high-level summary they are creating is consistent with the details of the article they are linking to. The introduction of an inconsistent claim indicates that there is a problem in one or both of the articles that needs to be addressed. Preferably, an editor who is editing a high-level summary page ought to have enough interest and expertise in the subject matter to also be able to contribute to more-detailed pages. The Hellenistic philosophies are complex systems of thought. They are difficult to summarize even at the main article level. Without a thorough working knowledge of the subject matter, summarizing summaries found in books that attempt to summarize the history of philosophy presents many opportunities for misinterpretation.Teishin (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying the source is wrong and that Wikipedia should override it? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I am saying that you're misinterpreting the source. The source appears to be giving a rather hurried and breezy introduction to the subject by latching onto some thematic concepts to create narrative and is not to be taken literally that ataraxia, which is a technical term in Hellenistic philosophy, was an objective of the Cynics.Teishin (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sophists

User:keepcalmandchill Sophists should not be removed. They were active in the Hellenistic period. Note particularly the Second Sophistic.

That should be in Ancient Roman philosophy, no? I'm fine with including the Sophists, it should just have some relevance to the era. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned the Second Sophistic as an example of the continuation of Sophism from the pre-Socratic era to beyond the Hellenistic era. Teishin (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Roman Era philosopher?

Shouldn't post-31 BCE philosophy be moved to Ancient Roman philosophy? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no agreed-upon dividing line here. Nothing forms a bright line. During the Imperial period nearly all philosophy continues to be done in Greek, mostly by Greeks. What is done in Latin is mostly for popularization, and not by important original thinkers. What we have from sources such as Marcus Aurelius and Sextus Empiricus differ little from what was said 300 years prior. Teishin (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For example, consider this source from Boston University "Hellenistic philosophy is a name for a variety of philosophical options which flourished in the period from the life of Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) to the late 2nd century CE." http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme04.htm Teishin (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Background

Teishin You said: "The content provided in this background seem unnecessary. The dating has already been handled in the immediately preceding lede. Moreover, the terminology re replacing is inappropriate. Cultural periods do not replace one another."

I said: "Insufficient reasoning to remove. It gives more much more detail than the one-sentence lede, including important historical context. Changed wording on periods, though."

Why is my reasoning not sufficient? It gives more detail than just dating. Just saying it's "unnecessary" does not help much. I have changed the terminology on the periods changing, even though cultural epochs by defintion do replace each other. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Reinstating the material in question since no response given. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The edits were annotated with responses to this question. At 03:02, 15 November 2020‎ I offered a correction to the content as an alternative to removal. At 03:26, 15 November 2020‎ I asked you to explain on the Talk page why this needed to be here. You did not respond here to why an end date to the period needed to be added to the article. At 13:42, 17 November 2020‎ I again noted "removing claim about the end of the Hellenistic period as this date is widely unsettled (see details about this at Hellenistic period.) At 21:21, 17 November 2020‎ I explained "read more than one sentence. From the article: " Scholars and historians are divided as to which event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achaean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or ..."" In this regard, I urge you to read what Hellenistic period says on this:

Scholars and historians are divided as to which event signals the end of the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic period may be seen to end either with the final conquest of the Greek heartlands by Rome in 146 BC following the Achaean War, with the final defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, or even the move by Roman emperor Constantine the Great of the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople in AD 330.[8][9] Angelos Chaniotis ends the Hellenistic period with the death of Hadrian in 138 AD, who integrated the Greeks fully into the Roman Empire;[10] and a range from c. 321 BC to 256 AD may also be given.[11]

Note that those claims are sourced. This is not WP:Circular. At 02:42, 18 November 2020‎ I again attempted to explain this matter: "That's not the correct history. As pointed out earlier, philosophy was mostly done in Greek during the Imperial period and continued as is. See additional commentary on Talk." At 02:46, 18 November 2020‎ I added to the explanation: "you apparently missed the response on the Talk page date stamped 02:35, 15 November 2020". You keep claiming that there was no response from me here. This points directly to that response:

The problem is that there's no agreed-upon dividing line here. Nothing forms a bright line. During the Imperial period nearly all philosophy continues to be done in Greek, mostly by Greeks. What is done in Latin is mostly for popularization, and not by important original thinkers. What we have from sources such as Marcus Aurelius and Sextus Empiricus differ little from what was said 300 years prior. Teishin (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You did not respond. I followed up on that at 02:32, 18 November 2020 with this:

For example, consider this source from Boston University "Hellenistic philosophy is a name for a variety of philosophical options which flourished in the period from the life of Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) to the late 2nd century CE." http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme04.htm Teishin (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You did not respond to that, either. Instead, you kept accusing me of failing to discuss the matter on the Talk page. Then you escalated the issue to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The result of this is now, as noted on your Talk page: "Hello Keepcalmandchill. You've been warned for long term edit warring as a result of the complaint at the edit warring board. The next time you or the other party make a change to Hellenistic philosophy you are risking a block unless you have received a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)"Teishin (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Teishin, Yes, I see that you believe there should be no mention of the exact end date for the period, and there currently isn't, so what is the problem? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There is the problem that you and I are now both banned from editing this page unless we agree on the Talk page, and this ban is due to the complaint you posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. There is also the problem that the article mentions an end date. The current article says: "and was followed by the predominance of Ancient Roman philosophy during the Roman Imperial period." With respect to philosophy and not other socio-political matters, Hellenistic philosophy continued long after other period demarcations. Prior editors were wise in not making any claims about when these philosophies ended, as the matter is so disputed. For that matter, see Modern Stoicism and Neostoicism that warrant articles (and I know of others that do not), suggesting that no end has happened. Consequently, claiming an end here would not seem to be warranted. Teishin (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Then you can add cited sources disputing this claim, just as has happened in the Hellenistic period. I don't understand why you insist on removing content, when you can easily add new content to reflect nuance. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Developments and debates in thought

The tag "Under construction|section" should be removed from == Developments and debates in thought == because there are no presently active editors pursuing this. Teishin (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I will add more content tonight Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is a brief description of my proposed edits: an expansion on the section Epicureanism, with content focused on the ethical aspects of their thought. Another expansion is of the section mentioned in the heading, with content focusing on epistemological debates between the Stoics, Cynics and other schools of the era. I can either make the edits directly and we can discuss any disagreements on specific issues here, or I can post the edits here first. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as the discussion here has picked up, is there anyone opposed to me adding the aforementioned content? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There's no harm in trying out an expansion. GPinkerton (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you are probably unaware that both Keepcalmandchill and I are under a warning about edits on this page without consensus, the reasons for which you can surmise by all of the discussion above and a review of the article's edit history starting on 8 July. Because of that and the fact that there is not agreement on such fundamental matters as whether the Cynics should be included on this page, there would seem to be potential for harm.Teishin (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Teishin I have not argued against the inclusion of Cynics at any point (if you mean the July 8th edit, that was because they were listed as non-Hellenistic). I literally expanded their section massively. And as you can see above, this proposed edit has nothing to do with them. If you wish to discuss them, please do so in the appropriate section. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill prior to your 8 July edit to remove the Cynics from this article the Cynics were not listed as "non-Hellenistic." This can be observed [[1]] Teishin (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Should we discuss having a merge discussion about ancient Roman philosophy and this page? It is correct to say these definitions overlap. Or perhaps issues at hand might be better solved proposing changing Ancient Roman philosophy to something like Ancient Latin philosophy? GPinkerton (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Note how little the IEP has to say about that subject: https://iep.utm.edu/romanphi/ and how Britannica lumps Roman in with Greek: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-philosophy/Ancient-Greek-and-Roman-philosophy Teishin (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think they overlap that bad. Hellenistic philosophy is done by Greek philosophers. Roman philosophy is done by Romans, even if in the Greek language. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Greek philosophy was from the earliest done by philosophers who were not Greek. Many of the key figures were not Greek, e.g., Zeno, Carneades, Aristippus. Diogenes Laertius pointed out that Greek philosophy from early on could be categorized as either Ionian or Italian. Moreover, there's no bright line between Greeks and Romans, e.g., Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus. Further, several schools of Hellenistic philosophy are alive today, most notably Modern Stoicism, which is certainly a Hellenistic philosophy which has almost no Greek philosophers presently involved.Teishin (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Zeno of Citium flourished in Athens, and was even offered citizenship there (source on the article page).

Carneades was from Cyrene, a Greek colony, as was Aristippus. They are no less Greek than Rudyard Kipling is British, despite the latter being born in India.

Plutarch was a Roman citizen (source on the article page).

Diogenes Laertius meant the Pythagoreans by 'Italians', who were also founded by Greek colonizers in Magna Graecia, literally 'Greater Greece'.

Modern Stoicism does not mean that we are still in the Hellenistic age of philosophy, any more than contemporary Platonists or Aristoteleans mean that we are still in the Classical age. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Aristotle, having lived and worked after the career of Alexander, is a Hellenistic period philosopher ... the Roman emperor Julian was a Neoplatonist. Are the Second and Third Sophistic periods flowerings of Hellenistic ("written in Greek") philosophy or of a "Roman philosophy"? What of Libanius and Thermistius? Both were Romans but their philosophy is Hellenistic. GPinkerton (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Aristotle died a year before Alexander, and was certainly not Hellenistic. Hellenistic schools existing in the Roman period is not disputed, but is irrelevant. There were also Classical schools active in the Hellenistic period. If you are going to define Hellenistic philosophy as "written in Greek", then you would need some sources for that. Latin was also used in philosophy long after the end of the Roman Empire. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Keepcalmandchill: Aristotle died a year before Alexander, and was certainly not Hellenistic. Are you one of those people that believes history can be divided in centuries-long periods that had actually definite moments of beginning? Like the world physically ticked over into a new, wholly different world the minute a man happened to die in Iraq? I don't think history isn't like that, still less the history of philosophy. If Alexander and Aristotle knew one another, then they lived in the same era. Who said Alexander had to die before Hellenistic philosophy could emerge? Moreover, I've heard it said the Hellenistic period began with the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), when Aristotle, Alexander, and Philip were all very much alive. And no, the Roman period is not "irrelevant" to the subject of Hellenistic philosophy. On the subject of Hellenistic religion, accounts differ: L. H. Martin, 1987, Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction covers the period lasting from the 4th century BC to the Christainization of the empire in 4th century AD, in Late Antiquity. A. Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age (2002) prefers another view. Prima facie, the word Hellenistic is inseparably tied to Greek and Greek language and has a broader application than just pertaining to the chronological span between Alexander and Augustus. It really means "Greek or Greek-like", i.e. Hellenized. The Roman Republic was an example of a Hellenistic or Hellenizing state, but the Romans did not become any less Hellenic after the Battle of Actium and the (gradual, imperceptible except in retrospect) beginning of the empire. In Algra, Keimpe (2014). "Aristotle's Conception of Place and its Reception in the Hellenistic Period". In Ranocchia, Graziano; Christoph, Helmig; Horn, Christoph (eds.). Space in Hellenistic Philosophy. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110365856.11. ISBN 978-3-11-036585-6. you can read about how Hellenistic philosophers like John Philoponus, Simplicius of Cilicia, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Xenarchus of Seleucia. The Judaean kingdom of Herod was Hellenistic, and so was the tetrarchy of his successors in the first century AD. The Hellenistic Odrysian kingdom existed into the second century, as did the Hellenistic kingdom of Bactria. The relevance of Themistius to Hellenistic philosophy has been considered by Blumenthal, Henry J. (1990). "Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?". In Sorabji, Richard (ed.). Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence. London: Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 119–132. doi:10.5040/9781474297554.ch-005. ISBN 978-1-4742-9755-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link). Latin philosophy, or ancient Latin philosophy if preferred, is itself heavily influenced by Hellenism, but unlike the Hellenistic philosopher emperors Marcus Aurelius and Julian some Roman philosophers decided to go against the prevailing grain of Hellenistic literary output of their era and write in Latin, having to think up all kinds of new translations and neologisms to shoehorn complex Hellenic idioms and technical language into Latin, a practice most Romans ultimately abandoned. GPinkerton (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't make out a precise point you're making. Are you suggesting that we don't have any period articles for philosophy? Yes, units of time from seconds to historical ages are arbitrary. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Keepcalmandchill: No, I'm saying that, as in the non-Wikipedia world, we should not try and categorize Greek philosophy based on the precise dates of when philosophers lived, but with which other philosophers they were known to have engaged, either in their own day or through textual reference. Few would call Boethius a Hellenistic philosopher, but Julian, Isidore of Miletus, Basil of Caesarea? Certainly. GPinkerton (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the point of disagreement here is what "Hellenistic" means. You are clearly of the opinion that it refers to all of culturally Hellenocentric thought. I don't think this is right, because then Byzantine and even Orthodox Christian thought would be included. And why wouldn't earlier Greek philosophy as well? Instead, I think it refers specifically to the thought of the Hellenistic period, which, although exact dates are contested, is generally defined as the period between the death of Alexander and the rise of Rome. The period of philosophy following the latter is appropriately covered by Ancient Roman philosophy, regardless of language or schools of thought. That of course leaves the possibility of overlap, with some philosophers perhaps referred to in both contexts. The idea that philosophy can be divided based on relationships between philosophers does not work, since there is basically an unbroken chain of debate from the pre-Socratics to contemporary philosophy in terms of textual referencing (with some gaps of time, of course). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that Roman can be separated from Hellenistic leads to a long list of anomalies. Was the Roman citizen Plutarch a Roman philosopher, despite the fact that he was ethnically Greek, lived in Greece, and wrote in Greek? Was the Roman Eques Musionius a Roman, teaching in Greek in Rome? Then how was it that he produced an ethnically Greek teacher, Epictetus, teaching in Greek in Greece? And such things happen not in the space of a generation or two, but across several centuries. Teishin (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Although our own analysis here is not unimportant, it is entirely secondary to what is in our sources. Further, sources dealing with philosophy are much more relevant than sources dealing with other matters, such as politics. Consider how the IEP handles this at https://iep.utm.edu/greekphi/ boiling down Roman philosophy to little more than this sentence: "Greek philosophy was the dominant philosophy for years, including in the Roman Republic and in the imperial era." So, while the term "Roman philosophy" may get used enough to perhaps have an article describing the concept, there is nothing discontinuous enough here to be declared a "Roman" era. Correspondingly there is little to say about Roman philosophy. It's just the phenomenon of Romans taking up Greek philosophy.Teishin (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Teishin, Yes, I agree that with should stick to sources.

Here is what they have to say about the dating of Hellenistic philosophy:

"Hellenistic philosophy concerns the thought of the Epicureans, Stoics, and Skeptics, the most influential philosophical groups in the era between the death of Alexander the Great (323 BCE) and the defeat of the last Greek stronghold in the ancient world (31 BCE)."

The Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy

"Seven and a half centuries lie between the deaths of Alexander the Great and St Augustine of Hippo; Alexander died in 323 BCE, Augustine in 430 CE. Historians divide this long stretch of time into two main periods, the Hellenistic and the Imperial. Alexander’s death marks the end of the classical and the beginning of the Hellenistic period, while the end of the latter is placed at the start of Augustus Caesar’s principate in 27 BCE, which inaugurates the Imperial period."

Grayling, A. C.. The History of Philosophy (p. 98). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

"So, what is ‘Hellenistic philosophy’? The adjective ‘Hellenistic’ (literally ‘Greek-like’) is primarily used to describe a historical period, a period running from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC to Octavian’s defeat of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC . . . That tells us what ‘Hellenistic’ refers to, but what about ‘Hellenistic philosophy’? Unsurprisingly, it is philosophy that took place in the Hellenistic period, between 323 and 31 BC."

Sellars, John. Hellenistic Philosophy (p. 6). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

Separating the two periods is the convention, even if it means that certain thinkers might seem arbitrarily excluded. I can't think of a historic period where that wouldn't be a problem, but you have to draw the line somewhere. However, I'm fine with including certain thinkers such as Plutarch in both articles, as well as leaving the exact dating vague.

As for the content of Ancient Roman philosophy, it is on my list to start adding to it. But it will take longer the more I have to engage here. I suggest reviewing my proposed edits above if anybody wants to see that done sooner. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill I see large inconsistencies in your approach. On 8 July you removed the Cynics from this article, arguing that they belonged in the Classic period. I reorganized the page to acknowledge the Cynics originated in the Classic period and noted that they continued through the Hellenistic era. On 12 Nov you changed your mind, declaring that the Cynics were Hellenistic. Today you change your mind again and exclude the Cynics, giving "Epicureans, Stoics, and Skeptics" as the list of schools of Hellenistic philosophy. Then you, apparently unknowingly, contradict that position by citing "what about ‘Hellenistic philosophy’? Unsurprisingly, it is philosophy that took place in the Hellenistic period." Those are two different things. Just as there is ambiguity about a terminal date, with respect to philosophy, that "Hellenistic" means, there's further ambiguity about which philosophies that term encompasses. So, it is perfectly reasonable to say "Epicureans, Stoics, and Skeptics" if one is talking about the philosophies that *arose* during the Hellenistic period, but if one is talking about the philosophies that *took place* in the Hellenistic period, then such a list is inadequate as several philosophies from the Classical period took place in the Hellenistic period as well. For example, as was noted before, the Classical philosophy of Cynicism was one of the main Hellenistic philosophies. You previously held that position so strongly that you engaged in an edit war with me, but today you present a list that excludes the Cynics.

I suggest that one needs more than reference to introductory survey books to properly source this topic. Such a book format places the author under severe pressures for conciseness and for providing a followable narrative. For example, some authors will wish to cover the Cynic tradition as part of the time in which it arose. Others will choose to cover it piecemeal over its long history. Others will cover just its influence on a particular era. Some will choose one end date for their narrative; others will choose a different date. The situation I've described is a good example of the pitfalls of that approach. We do not have the kind of authorial control over narrative that these authors have. Correspondingly, the structures adopted by other encyclopedias are a better guide to how Wikipedia should structure the narrative than the structures used in introductory survey books. Further, one needs to take into consideration Wikipedia's existing content on these philosophies. What is said here needs to be consistent with what is said on the pages that this article links to.

I continue to agree with the general idea of GPinkerton's proposal: that this article should cover Hellenistic and Roman philosophy. I think the existing Roman philosophy page should be retained, but it should discuss how Rome took up Greek philosophy and point to this page for details about those philosophies. Teishin (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

At [[2]] EdJohnston said, "I do have my own suggestion for a source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. When deciding how Wikipedia should approach a topic, it is sometimes worth considering how tertiary sources organize their own material." This reiterates what I urged above, referencing both the IEP and Britannica. I checked the Stanford Encyclopedia, too, but it does not even have entries on Hellenistic or Roman philosophy. This is perhaps very wise of them, as it allowed them to avoid facing exactly the kinds of issues we are now struggling with, and it also reflects Wikipedia's approach to this article for the ten or so years prior to now. Our article mostly just listed links to anything that gets called "Hellenistic", relying on the content in the linked articles rather than attempting to summarize those summaries.Teishin (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Cynics comment is not relevant. I only quoted that passage to show that the Hellenistic period has an ending point, not to suggest Cynics aren't a part of it. Many other sources would say otherwise.

No, we should not focus on another Internet encyclopedia to decide what to cover, or we will be a much poorer place. IEP and SEP are written by experts and hence are much more limited in their content, just like Britannia is tiny compared to Wikipedia. What is even the point of Wikipedia if it's just a copy of those? But in any case, I don't understand what the disagreement is about. If you say you want to keep the Roman philosophy article, then we have no problem. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think if you looked more closely at IEP and SEP you'd find them be more expansive and technical in their content than Wikipedia, rather than "much more limited in their content." Their articles tend to be long and to go into more detail than our articles. One reason we should concern ourselves with these sources is to help us address this question of organizational structure, which is not about making Wikipedia "just a copy of those." How is it that you think Wikipedia would become "a much poorer place" if it were to use specialized encyclopedias written by experts as guidance?Teishin (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, seeing as both IEP and SEP lack a an article on Hellenistic philosophy, relying on them for "organisational guidance" would make this place poorer by not having articles such as this. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's the IEP's article you were unable to find https://iep.utm.edu/greekphi/ Teishin (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I was not "unable to find" it. That is not article on Hellenistic philosophy. If we follow the "organisational guidance" there, then we should just have one article for all of Greek philosophy. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The article's section on Hellenistic philosophy can be found on https://iep.utm.edu/greekphi/#H5 . Yes, indeed, we should consider the organizational guidance of the IEP to consolidate to a single article about ancient Greek and Roman philosophy. This is similar to GPinkerton's proposal. Teishin (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Scope

I've added citations from reliable sources to support the argument that this page, which is about Hellenistic philosophy, should be focused on philosophy done the Hellenistic period, not all philosophers who are "Hellenistic" i.e. Greek. I've removed any schools that began after the end of the Hellenistic period (31 BC). The content wasn't much other than a few lists and uncited content, but anyone is welcome to add such content to Ancient Roman philosophy if they feel it is best. I've also moved the content on the classical period schools to the background section, as it is relevant to the article but should be covered in a more abbreviated WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Several scholarly monographs, including those already cited on this page, treat this as the meaning of "Hellenistic" in the term "Hellenistic philosophy." The content will need to be expanded from pages such as Stoicism, Epicureanism and Academic skepticism

@Keepcalmandchill - any concerns or feedback? - car chasm (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)