Talk:The School of Athens/Archives/2020/May

Gun's N' Roses

Is it worth mentioning the character two people to the left of number 17 features on the album artwork for Use your Illusion 1 & 2 by Guns and Roses? Andythrax 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.57.11 (talk)

No. Pollinosisss (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it is. Snobbishness aside, use in popular culture is a regular feature on Wiki articles. 83.71.58.153 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Pollinosisss. I completely agree with 83.71.58.153. It's relevant to Use Your Illusion. I disagree on the name of the band which is Guns N' Roses. The image has been removed on 18 April 2020‎ by a genius that calls himself Ceoil but it can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_School_of_Athens&oldid=951340698#/media/File:Raffaello_Scuola_di_Atene_numbered.svg.

ICE77 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The mis-identification of "Pythagoras"

This one is just incredibly frustrating. The figure, lower left, writing, with figure displaying a tablet of Pythagorean ideas, is just not Pythagoras. The ID was based on an incorrect assumption that the Muse (Clio) showing him the tablet identified him. It does not.

It is St. Paul. Please see images I have uploaded. All you have to do is see how Raphael portrayed St. Paul in Disputation of the Holy Sacrament. And compare.

2pauls

Paul1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias316 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Pythagoras stands, center right, pointing. See images.(And,as I have noted here, before,he is standing next to the Delphic Sybil, or Pythia.See how that works? They have given you a verification tool by posing the Sybil adjacent. Pythagoras-Pythia).

Detail, left, Raphael: 'School of Athens', compare to: images of Pythagoras

Again, (like it or not) this work is actually a puzzle, a riddle. You are supposed to solve the figures' identities.

And again, the brilliance of this composition lies in the fact that the author(s) have included a method for the observer to confirm the correct solutions. It is not true that the identities will always be 'hypothetical' as the article states.

It is simple. All the major figures have a 'mate' that begins with the same letter. Usually, not always, the paired figures are adjacent to one another. A few are not. A notable few are separated by some distance. The 'students' are the Muses. The Sybils stand next to figures as an aid in identification.

In this case, the figure that is consistently misidentified as being 'Pythagoras' is next to St. Peter. Look: his foot is posed upon a rock. Get it? "Upon this rock...". The image of St. Peter, from:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo.St_Peter.Duomo_di_Siena.jpg

And why would 'Pythagoras' be copying his own work?

It's just throwing sand in the eyes to include this nonsense. Not difficult with search engines to get the right answers.

And what,I think is being missed here,sadly, in this particular instance, is a point concerning the impact of Hellenization upon the evolution of Christianity.

"Knowledge of Causes".

(Just to be clear, here, I guess that I should add that the Delphic Sybil, or Pythia, is to the immediate right of Pythagoras, seated, writing, and not included in the image I have provided).

And:

If anyone would like to verify what I am saying here, just look for a modified image of this, contained within the work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SibylCumae.jpg

Now, if you have found her, you can hypothesize that the figure adjacent,(left) begins with the letter 'C'.

Once you recognize what is happening there, then do an image search for the figure and you should find the source of the image.

Go to my 'talk' page if you need an additional hint.

Tobias316 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Tobias316 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Tobias316 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Tobias316 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Tobias316 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Tobias316, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, everything you have proposed is original research and cannot be implemented. Unless you have verified, reliable academic sources, nothing you have said can even be considered for inclusion in the article. Aza24 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the courtesy.

But if you read some of my admittedly rather extensive "enthusiasms" here, you will see where I acknowledge that there might be a point about 'OR', but that I really wasn't suggesting any changes. I understand that the mere repetition of all the failed IDs in the past gives then some sort of presumptive legitimacy. But all of those "academic citations" are really of very inexpert opinions only.

My source, you see, is Raphael.

But they're almost all wrong. And the 'OR' policy of Wiki, combined with the incorrect notion that IDs will remain 'hypothetical' conspire, combine, to actually perpetuate misinformation. I disagree, however, that mere observations are, in fact, "research".

My point? To show that the purported identifications and even the overall theory of the work is fundamentally flawed. What I would suggest is that the article confine itself to what is known and not debatable. In the ID section, for instance, only Aristotle, Diogenes and Averroes are correct. (And Plato, of course. But not with Leonardo, "as"). If you currently do an image search for "Pythagoras", you will turn up an image of St. Paul that comes from here. Absolutely Epic Fail.

I was under the impression that the idea was to write an encyclopedia article. I assume that it would be a good thing, then, to actually understand what the subject of the article is about. At a minimum, I would wholeheartedly approve of removing the ID section entirely. But I do not get into editing wars. I'm not even suggesting changes. Keep it intact, if you must.

I am quite certain of what I am saying and I am trying to help. And share what I have learned. And there are some extremely important things that are just not being seen or appreciated. It's an awful pity. I appreciate that everyone has been tolerant and patient and allowed me considerable latitude to weigh in, here. But please consider that I am also being very patient and considerate. Sorry if this sounds arrogant or unkind, it is not meant to, but when I read some of the comments and discussions here, it is obvious to me that some really have little understanding of what is going on with this work...and repeating mistakes, misidentifications, and misapprehensions just doesn't add anything of value to the equation.

But...it there is anyone out there with some intellectual curiosity...please read what I said under the section "School's Out" about the 4 figures to the right of Aristotle and simply put me to the test. Try it. Meet me on my 'talk' page. If you work through the identifications, you will most likely never see this work in the same light again. Something fun to do while we're all 'socially isolating'.

Thanks.

Tobias316Tobias316Tobias316 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Tobias316, if it makes you feel better, I had talked to another user on this page and we agreed that it was best to remove almost all of the identifications, leaving only 6 or 7 ones that are widely accepted. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting your theories here. Since you have mentioned that your theories are not necessarily for improving the article, they are not appropriate here as this page is solely for improvement of the article, not general discussion of its contents. I mean this with the best of intentions as I do find your theories interesting, but this is unfortunately not the place for them. Aza24 (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, again, and I don't want to overstay my welcome.

But I don't think I ever said that my posts were not for the purpose of improving the article. If you are referring to the section I just added, entitled: "The Mis-Identification of Pythagoras", that was added to explain my comment in reply to another user that the image of St. Paul be included as being of Pythagoras. So,how is that "not about the article"? Seems to me that it was directly pointed at what should and should not be included. (Perhaps I was too abrupt with this other user, but I had just noticed this user refer to another user as a "dummy" and sarcastically, I assume, as an "authority". I was under the impression that sort of thing wasn't allowed).

And I don't consider them to be "theories", but explanations of what Raphael left within the work to aid recognition. Again, meet me on my Talk page and do me the courtesy of working through the IDs to the right of Aristotle with me. You should "get it", then. You should be able to see how Raphael left a deliberate pattern to aid confirmation of identities.

But if you're going to leave the image of St. Paul identified as "Pythagoras"? No. Please don't. That's just plain incorrect. And not helping anyone with that, whether or not it is "generally agreed" or not.

Thanks,very much, I'm out...

Tobias316 (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Tobias316 (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)