Unsourced? I AM the source. Are you challenged or something? It is all quotes from Wikipedia, but obviously they won't challenge the official narrative to the extent that I have.
"Unlike nearly all of his philosophical contemporaries, Plato's entire work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years"
I mean, really. None of his contemporaries work survives, because that is a REALLY long time ago, but Plato's does. Meanwhile, what they actually mean is, his work was lost to the West until Pleton 'translated' it all into Latin, in the 1400s.
[–] TrialsAndTribulation ago
No, you are not the source. You are an aggregator, and not a particularly good one. You have assembled numerous pieces of information from other places, which often, but not always lead to primary sources. The older or more contemporary to the subject is often the most definitive. Now, if you could provide these primary sources, rather than secondary or tertiary sources Wikipedia usually accepts as credible documentation, you could make a case for your thesis. As it is now, you're proposing some idea that COULD be credible but will never because you have no basis in fact, i.e., primary sources. I'm certainly not one to rely on argumentation by authority, but I'm also not one to accept an absolutely undocumented, unsourced, and obviously contemporary reinterpretation based on no evidence whatsoever.
It's just bad scholarship, dude.
[–] TheSeer [S] ago
Let me ask you, what is the oldest piece of paper/parchment in existence? Is it over 2000 years old? Or has everything been re-'copied' and therefore rewritten? I mean, what is your argument exactly? That Plethon didn't exist? That he didn't 'reintroduce' Plato to the West? That democracy doesn't allow those with the largest bank account to take control, due to their ability to bribe officials, and buy votes?