Plato

Record yearTransmitted Materials from the 5th–4th Centuries BCE

summaryIt places ethical questions about how to live, virtue, and care of the soul within publicly examinable reasons, definitions, counterexamples, and consistency tests; Socrates' historical practice and the authored texts of Plato and Xenophon together form a form through which the inquiry can be repeated.

M rationaleM7 is retained: requests for definitions concerning life and virtue, questioning of reasons, counterexamples, refutation, consistency testing, and acknowledgment of ignorance form an ethical framework reusable across questions and generations. Uncertainty at the authorial layer is not deducted again from M; Plato's middle and late theories, the dialogue form's independent literary value, and all subsequent philosophy are not included.

attribution rationaleReassessed for the same outcome: Socrates' ethical questioning and core in-person tests receive .35; Plato receives .25 only for substantively added propositions, counterexamples, and argument structures in the early material, rather than a share for being the principal textual author; Xenophon's substantive reconstruction receives .07, interlocutors .05, other authors .03, earlier inputs to argumentation .10, and unresolved responsibility .15. The boundary between authorship and the historical core remains disputed; these are working estimates, not measurements from historical sources.

overlap boundaryOne framework receives one Q; question-and-answer, counterexamples, and acknowledgment of ignorance are not split into separate equal-M items. Plato's middle and late epistemology, metaphysics, and political designs belong to his other existing outcomes; mere written preservation and the dialogue form's independent literary value are excluded, and this item is not allocated to historical practice a second time.

Evidence gapsThe propositions of the historical Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon still need to be distinguished dialogue by dialogue; documented instances from different periods do not demonstrate uninterrupted transmission or net effects that hold generally. This round defines the boundary between the historical framework and creative additions, but it has not resolved the Socratic problem dialogue by dialogue; relative shares are research estimates.

Record yearFORMS

summaryIt organizes intelligible Forms, perceptible objects, conditions of knowledge, and theories of the soul into interlinked theoretical questions that later dialogues can subject to refutation. The resulting theoretical corpus includes the Phaedo, Meno, Symposium, Phaedrus, Parmenides, and Theaetetus on Forms, recollection and learning, knowledge, soul, and self-critique; the Republic's constitutional design is left to the political item, and its passages on Forms do not duplicate the value of the complete text.

M rationaleM6.3 is retained: multiple dialogues organize Forms, perception, knowledge, soul, and dialectical refutation into a continuing field of inquiry. Its value lies in argumentative structure and self-critique, without requiring a unified Platonism to be judged true. Political design and later additions by Neoplatonism are excluded.

attribution rationalePlato receives .50 for the authored argumentative system; prehistory receives .18, substantive co-formation through dialogue and Academy discussion .08, and early substantive content formation .03. Mere transmission and institutional longevity do not enter the formation budget; .21 remains unresolved for dating, authorial commitment, and attribution of propositions.

overlap boundaryThe Republic's constitutional design belongs to the political item. Socrates' literary appearance does not automatically confer individual responsibility; only identifiable historical inputs enter the co-formation or unresolved pool.

Evidence gapsThe dating of the dialogues, the degree of Plato's own commitment, and Socrates' specific historical inputs remain unresolved proposition by proposition. Collection and division in the Phaedrus and the later classificatory dialectic have a potentially shared component that still needs examination. The two outcomes have not yet undergone a paired calibration of distinct functions and attribution; the current point estimates do not establish that these boundaries have been verified.

Record yearREPUBLIC

summaryIt organizes a political design open to concrete examination through comparisons across constitutions, knowledge of ruling, education, and legislative preambles, then turns to a more institutional design in the Laws. It covers the Republic's constitutional, educational, and justice design; the Statesman's classification of rule; and the Laws' legal and civic-education proposals; the general value of the theory of Forms belongs to the metaphysical item, while later regimes and Academy institutions are excluded.

M rationaleM5.8 is retained: comparisons across constitutions, knowledge of ruling, education, and legislative preambles form a political and legal design open to concrete examination. The prior M already excludes actual institutional welfare, later regimes, Academy institutions, and the whole history of political philosophy, while recording disputes over coercive hierarchy, authority to rule, and authorial stance; this round adds no evidence requiring a narrower scope.

attribution rationalePlato receives .50 as the core of the authored political design; prehistory receives .21, substantive co-formation through dialogue and Academy discussion .07, and early substantive content formation .03. Mere copying, transmission, and institutional support are excluded; .19 remains unresolved for dating and attribution.

overlap boundaryThe general value of the theory of Forms belongs to the metaphysical item; organizational service to the Academy is listed separately; adoption by later regimes is not fed back into this item.

Evidence gapsThe dating of the Laws, Plato's direct authorial stance, causal effects on actual ancient institutions, and Socrates' specific inputs remain unresolved.

Record yearSOPHIST

summaryIt develops a dialectical procedure for dividing concepts by differences of kind and uses mathematical order in an integrated explanation of the cosmos, matter, and life. It covers the Sophist's division and non-being problem, the Philebus's mixture and measure, and the Timaeus's mathematical cosmology and natural explanations; political and legal design belongs to the political item, and later scientific outcomes are excluded.

M rationaleM5.6 is retained: the dialectical procedure of dividing concepts by differences of kind and natural explanation through ancient mathematical order form a delimited composite object. The prior M already excludes modern scientific outcomes, political and legal design, and general metaphysics; this round adds no evidence about effects or scope that supports changing the value.

attribution rationalePlato receives .46; the two categories of prehistory inputs total .34; substantive dialogue discussion receives .07, early substantive content formation .03, and unresolved formation .10. Mere transmission is excluded, and knowledge inputs do not become Plato's personal original creation simply because they appear in a dialogue.

overlap boundaryThe Statesman and legal design belong to the political item; general theories of Forms, knowledge, and soul belong to the metaphysical item; later scientific outcomes are excluded.

Evidence gapsPlato's methods of division, inputs from dialogue characters, and Presocratic and mathematical-natural sources of knowledge still need to be distinguished work by work. Collection and division in the Phaedrus and the later classificatory dialectic have a potentially shared component that still needs examination. The two outcomes have not yet undergone a paired calibration of distinct functions and attribution; the current point estimates do not establish that these boundaries have been verified.

Record yearFrom approximately 387 BCE

summaryThis covers the organizational service of establishing, convening, and maintaining the Academy's early research-and-teaching community during Plato's lifetime; members' theoretical achievements and additional services by later heads are outside this item.

M rationaleM4.2 is retained: it is limited to organizing, researching, teaching, and serving the early community during Plato's lifetime, without claiming members' theories, later heads, or all achievements over three hundred years. Existing evidence supports an important but bounded organizational contribution to higher teaching.

attribution rationaleThe object here is organizational service, so co-organization, actual participation in teaching and research, and administrative support for the site may all enter the formation budget. Plato remains at .28; later heads are excluded; records that merely preserve history do not enter, while early records that made the community's identifiable and operational boundaries possible receive .02.

overlap boundaryMembers' philosophical and mathematical achievements belong to their respective content outcomes; Academy discussion in Plato's other content cards claims only concrete co-formation of arguments and cannot duplicate organizational service.

Evidence gapsPrimary records are still lacking for the early curriculum, membership boundaries, property rights, concrete governance actions, and operation of the site.