Wikipedia: The Presocratics/Talk

Difference (from prior minor revision) (major diff)

Changed: 1,9c1

First, I want to compliment the authors on a well written and interesting article! I would also like clarification of the following sentence:

:And though there has been a great deal of argument about the relative weights that reason and observation should have, as well as significant refinements in both logic and observational methods, philosophers for two and a half centuries are basically united in the use of the very method of the pre-Socratics.

To which two and a half centuries are you referring? Or do you mean the two and a half millennia since the Pre-Socratics?

--Matt Stoker
---
I should have said "two and a half millennia". The text of the page has been changed.

First, I want to compliment the authors on a well written and interesting article! --Matt Stoker

Changed: 13c5

I left it where it was, but created redirects from presocratic, and presocratics which should take care of the non-intuitive link problem. Though perhaps we should have a link from pre-socratic?. I really don't want to clutter everything up with redirects, but I think it better to have these than to end up with redundant pages because people didn't know about the correct page name. MRC

First, I want to compliment the authors on a well written and interesting article! --Matt Stoker

should this be under "The Presocratics" or "Presocratics"? I know that the article is almost always part of the statement, but is it Wikipedia? I noticed this when the Protagoras entry didn't line up with anything. And is he *really* Heraclitus of Ephesus? I've never heard of another Heraclitus, and I was an undergraduate classics major.