Talk:Paideia

I moved this to just "Paideia" because I don't think there's anything like a non-Greek Paideia, right? Stan 22:35, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point. I agree. But then the word can be used such as the Roman Paideia, or the Paideia of any culture. I guess we can say Paideia: Roman etc. The word can grow.

Paideia is also the word in "Wikipedia". "-pedia" is the same word. "Encyclopaedia" "-paedia" is the same word along with Pedogogy or paedogogy with "Ped-" the same word. WHEELER 14:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For other cultures I think we would tend to use other terms; cultural education among the Thais or the Sumatrans is likely quite different in character. Stan 16:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay.WHEELER 18:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no understanding of Greek culture and its terms, and its society without understanding Paideia. I am having many problems in the Political section because no one understands ancient Greek culture. Most political terms were derived from the Greeks. Yet much of the definitions don't match anything the Greeks said or thought. Especially on what is a Republic. (See, Talk:Republic and Greek Philosophies on Republic). WHEELER 19:14, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page on Paideia will constantly grow with a constant spiralling of offshoots. This site is by no means finished and many more related articles from others are soon to follow. We definately need more classiscists on the program.WHEELER 19:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to list "wikipedia" in the words which contain paideia... self-references are frowned upon I thought. Also, is there any particular reason for using the "encyclopaedia" spelling rather than "encyclopedia"? fabiform | talk 14:25, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am a traditionalist and I grew up with the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I always loved it. You may change it if you want. WHEELER 15:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning has been on board and hasn't said anything about the use of the word 'Wikipedia'. It is a good way for wikipedians to know a little of the etymology of their word. WHEELER 16:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Um, I simply had no comment to make on the topic, I'm not an expert here :-) . Fabiform: could you dig up the policy which says self references are specifically bad? We can edit the article based on that policy then. Kim Bruning 18:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. :-) This has usually been extended to strongly dissuade articles from using Wikipedia in examples -- I'd say it likely applies here. Noting its connection to encyclopedia is perfectly legitimate, and the connection that is thereby made to Wikipedia should be obvious. We can assume our readers have the ability to make that connection, anyway, I think. Jwrosenzweig 18:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see. Applied. Kim Bruning 18:29, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I disagree with the article's reference to "pedagogy" or "pedagogue" -- the word's origins, as far as linguists can tell, have nothing to do with "Paideia". The word derives from "pais" or "ped" meaning "child" and "agogos" meaning "leader" or "guide", as I recall. I can look up references if needed. Jwrosenzweig 16:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An alternative origin is that the "paidagogos" was the term for the slave who led the children to school -- "pais" also having the meaning of "slave". Jwrosenzweig 16:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is exaclty right. Paidia in modern Greek means child. Children and Slaves have the same root basis. Observe.

"Who ever receives a child", The Greek reads "toiouton paidon" This at Mark 9:37. Paidia is Child and Children.

In the Septuagint at Exodus 20:17 where it says, Thou shalt not covet thy manservant nor maid servant the Greek reads "oute Paida" and "oute Paidiskin".

Paidia is the root of all.

Mr. Jwrosenweig you quote from this encyclopaedia and I noticed that this article was messed up; this whole place is all messed up according to Greek words and definitions. From Top to Bottom.WHEELER 14:37, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am confused by the above, WHEELER. You had originally asserted that Paideia was the root for pedagogy. Are you altering that assertion? I agree with you that "paid" means child in Greek.....so it makes sense that pedagogy and paideia share that as a root. But one is not the root of the other, as you had originally stated -- at least, I contend that paideia is not a root of pedagogy, and I don't see anything above that disputes this, other than your assertion that "paidia" is the root of all. Are you suggesting that the word for education "paideia" antedates the word for child "paid"? Surely it would be far more logical that child is an earlier word that lends itself to education? Why should we assume that the word for slave is also descended from the word for education? I would assume that first there was a word for child, which was used to refer to slaves (who had no more rights than children in the time, perhaps?).....later, as children were led out into the world by slaves, we got the notion of a "paidagogue" who leads them.....and later still, Plato conceives of education as a kind of being led out (out of the cave, specifically) and paideia results. This seems logical to me. I cannot conceive of a reason for "paideia" initiating the chain of events.

Furthermore, I do not understand this quote of yours at all: "Mr. Jwrosenweig you quote from this encyclopaedia and I noticed that this article was messed up; this whole place is all messed up according to Greek words and definitions. From Top to Bottom." What encyclopedia are you referring to? I didn't quote any encyclopedia....I was referring to a dictionary when I made the above comments, but I didn't say which one. Why should you assume that the encyclopedia you were looking at was the one I referred to? I feel as though you are desperately trying to find a reason to discredit me, when all I'm doing is pointing out a correction that I can't see any reason for you to object to. You made an entirely understandable error (we all make them), and I've pointed it out -- why not cheerfully admit it and move on? You have a good article here that I'm trying to aid you in improving. Please accept that. Jwrosenzweig 17:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On wikipedia's own site for pedogogy is wrong in the Greek. I thought you looked it up on this website becuase you used the same meaning. There is much confusion around. The word 'paideia' is in Loeb's Politics of Aristotle on page 274. Paideia comes from the word child. No, I am not changing words or definition. The English aliteration of the Greek word is wrong. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I grew up on, is of a psuedo-Greek aliteration. "paedia" it is not. Mr. Jaeger puts it in the right aliteration of Paideia. I believe the English did not transliterate well.

We do have a Greek on board called Anglephorus. Maybe He can help.WHEELER 18:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have found in Politics, Loeb, pg 645; 1338 5; "paidotriviky" as trainer.WHEELER 18:13, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, please look at any etymological dictionary (American Heritage, Oxford English, etc.) under "pedagogy" for the origins of the word. I think you'll find I am correct. Jwrosenzweig 19:14, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto It says also this comes from Pais but he says "It is generally assumed." I will go ahead and change it. I will have to research the word some more. It is too bad I am not at a gigantic library with endless funds and expertise. WHEELER 13:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's why we're trying to build one eh? ;-) Kim Bruning 13:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you might look at [1] (http://www.bartleby.com/61/34/P0143400.html), [2] (http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/P0143300.html), and [3] (http://adams.allwords.com/word-pedagogy.html). I really wish you'd recognize that no one here is a gigantic library -- together we make one. When people find proof that disqualifies your assertion (as I've done for the etymology of "pedagogy" and as others did concerning Mussolini's remark about the "right"), I wish you would accept their statements. It is hard to discuss things with you when you insist that you are right until I provide proof, and then you make the general statement "I will have to research this" or "I will have to see the original with my own eyes" -- in a worldwide project, these aren't reasonable requests. I've demonstrated that I am correct on this one minor issue. It's not a big deal -- people get confused about etymology all the time. I know I do. But it becomes irritating (please try to envision) when a person demands verifiable proof but then refuses to accept it when it arrives. I'm not trying to show that paideia and pedagogy have nothing to do with each other -- just that one is not the root of the other. Will you please agree with me so that we can end this tiny argument and go back to working on improving this article into peak condition? I hope you will. I think we can work profitably together, but only if you allow yourself to trust that the other contributors here generally have good intentions, and are not out to deceive and ensnare one another. Jwrosenzweig 16:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) My mistake! I apologize, I thought your remark about needing to research was an attempt to stall me. I see now your remark about change meant that you were changing the article -- I thank you. I'm leaving the links un-crossed so you can use them for research, but please ignore my other comments, which were made because I misunderstood you. I apologize and will try to assume good faith (and read more carefully) in the future. Thank you for being understanding, Jwrosenzweig 16:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)