The Republic

Feb 09, 2011 Brendan rated it 1 of 5 stars Recommends it for: everyone

Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.

Seriously.

And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.

Every single one of his works goes like this:

SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the follow...more

150 likes · like · see review

Dec 05, 2011 Everyman rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: my-library

All the criticisms of Plato are valid. He raises straw arguments. He manipulates discussions unfairly. He doesn't offer realistic solutions. And so on.

But he is still, and for very good reason, the most influential philosopher in Western civilization. He makes people think. Most authors we read today are trying to persuade us to agree with their point of view. Plato, not so. He wants you to disagree with him. He wants you to argue with him. He wants you to identify the fallacies in his arguments...more

98 likes · like · see review

Nov 30, 2012 Henry Avila rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Plato's "The Republic", is a great but flawed masterpiece of western literature,yes it makes sense,mostly,some of it."I am the wisest man in the world because I know one thing.That I know nothing", said the smart man....Socrates. Plato is writing for Socrates, his friend and teacher. Late teacher, since being forced to commit suicide by the uncomfortable citizens of Athens( the famous poisoned cup of hemlock)!For corrupting the minds of youth! Socrates didn't believe books were as effective as l...more

13 likes · like · see review

Mar 19, 2012 Emily May rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: classics, non-fiction

My re-reading of this for my university course has led me to the same conclusions I found when I first read it a couple of years back, except this time I am fortunate enough to have understood it better than last time. My conclusions being that Plato, and through him Socrates, was very intelligent, believed he was more intelligent than everyone else (no matter how many times he declared himself unwise) and very much loved to talk. Socrates, in particular, must have been very fond of the sound of...more

17 likes · like · see review

Nov 09, 2012 Cheryl rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, classics, morality, psychology

Why is it easy to understand a concept in the ideal, and so difficult to understand it in reality?

This is the question raised in Plato's dialogues that peaked my interest, explained my frustration, and highlighted my feeling of alienation.

I am an idealist, therefore the Forms resonate with me. Why are we given a concept of the extraordinary but are unable to find it in reality? What is knowledge of the perfect musical piece, love relationship, artist's rendering, poet's rendition, or intellectua...more

12 likes · like · see review

Nov 02, 2007 Mark rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: those with a philosophical bent

I finished reading The Republic on my birthday and now am both older and wiser. The Republic is in essence one long argument why a person should lead a just life verses choosing a life of pleasure, riches, ambition, or power. It is deeply concerned with the nature of the human soul and how to prepare one's soul for eternity. Socrates/Plato uses a plethora of logical examples for this argument, although it is the logic of 400 B.C. Greek culture, which seems somewhat fractured to us today. The Rep...more

13 likes · like · see review

Apr 04, 2008 Jason Pettus rated it 4 of 5 stars

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classic" books for the first time, then write reports on whether or not I think they deserve the label

Essay #11: The Republic, by Plato (~360 BC)

The story in a nutshell:
For those who don't know, the last 2,500 years of Western civilization can be rou...more

21 likes · like · see review

Ac From your review I can tell with certainty you haven't the slightest understand of Plato or the "Socratic method". and to a lesser extent, you made se...more
Jul 23, 2008 10:52am

Stewart I would urge caution when we feel the need to write greater than the need to read.
Feb 26, 2012 02:40am

Jason Williams Ac wrote: "the western neglect for great works came BEFORE MEDIEVAL ages, during this age it was taken back up!"

This is simply not accurate. Outside o...more
Mar 07, 2012 10:46pm

Jul 20, 2007 aisha rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

i have read plato's republic...three times.

and i've actually enjoyed every time, although i hadn't thought i would each round.

i love greek writing, and though aristotle and thucydides are my favorite, plato is a close second (third?).

even if you disagree with the ideas he presents, the ideas are fascinating to discuss. i actually kind of think it is way more fun to discuss when someone contradicts an idea or assumption made.

the dialectic style is one of my favorite aspects of the novel. as a fan...more

8 likes · like · see review

Jun 27, 2007 Covert.adrian rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Those seeking answers, or at least the means to help you find your own.

No book has influenced my life more than Plato's Republic. It admittedly can be a difficult read: it is almost entirely a back and forth conversation between two people, Socrates and Glaucon, discussing the nature of man, the soul, justice, and what the most just society, or Republic, would look like. In this highly utopian account, Socrates expresses little hope in the common man, and instead suggests authoritarian rule, by philosophers, would lead to the most just state. His contempt for democ...more

9 likes · like · see review

May 13, 2013 Lona rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

ها أنا قد قرأت أخيراً 'جمهورية' أفلاطون، ولو طُلب مني أن أُعبِّر عن انطباعي حول جمهوريته بجملة مختصره، سأقول ما سطَّره قلمي في آخر صفحة من الكتاب:-

جمهورية أفلاطون يحكمها فيلسوف 'خيالي'، وسُكَّانها رجال آليين

****** **** ** * ** **** ******

تنقسم هذه المحاورة إلا عشرة أجزاء، أو كما اسماها المترجم عشرة كتب، كل كتاب يختص بموضوع معين يرتبط بما سبقه ارتباطاً وثيقاً ومكملاً له بتوسع، وهذه المواضيع يتحاور فيها "سقراط" مع مجموعة من الأشخاص

ما هو العدل؟ وهل الشخص العادل شخص سعيد نتيجة لعدله والظالم تعيس لظ...more ها أنا قد قرأت أخيراً 'جمهورية' أفلاطون، ولو طُلب مني أن أُعبِّر عن انطباعي حول جمهوريته بجملة مختصره، سأقول ما سطَّره قلمي في آخر صفحة من الكتاب:-

جمهورية أفلاطون يحكمها فيلسوف 'خيالي'، وسُكَّانها رجال آليين

****** **** ** * ** **** ******

تنقسم هذه المحاورة إلا عشرة أجزاء، أو كما اسماها المترجم عشرة كتب، كل كتاب يختص بموضوع معين يرتبط بما سبقه ارتباطاً وثيقاً ومكملاً له بتوسع، وهذه المواضيع يتحاور فيها "سقراط" مع مجموعة من الأشخاص

ما هو العدل؟ وهل الشخص العادل شخص سعيد نتيجة لعدله والظالم تعيس لظلمة؟! من هنا تنطلق المحاورة ويتدرج سقراط مع محاوريه فيها صعوداً وتوسعاً ليصل إلى مدينته الفاضلة

سقراط محاور "مستفز" فكرياً وهذا ليس بالغريب لطبيعته "الفلسفية"، تبدأ المحاورة بجدال قوي بينه وبين محاوريه ولكن بعد ذلك يستلم سقراط وحده دفة طرح السؤال والإجابة على نفسه ويقتصر دور محاوريه في الثناء، والتأكيد، وإعادة سؤاله مره أخرى ونادراً ما يتدخل شخص بسؤال يقلب دفة الحوار. هذا الأمر ليس بالمؤثر كثيراً على مدى توَّسع الحوار لعدة جوانب من القضية المطروحة فسقراط بطبيعة حواره يجادل نفسه بنفسه وهنا تكمن المتعة، فما أن نرتاح لفكرة حتى يقلبها رأساً على عقب مرة أخرى

أردت كتابة مختصر شديد لتقسيم الكتب لإعطاء فكرة لمن يريد المعرفة عن طبيعة هذه الأقسام واحترت ولم تطول هذه الحيرة، بعد قراءتي للمقدمة التي أؤجلها دائما لحين الانتهاء من قراءة الكتاب. الكتاب مقسَّم كالآتي*:-

الكتب الثلاثة الأولى: عن العدالة وتعريفها وعن كونها أساس للحضارة الإنسانية

الكتاب الرابع عن هيكلية الدولة وكيف يجب بناؤها

الكتب الثلاثة: الخامس والسادس والسابع وصلت فيها الفلسفة إلى أعلى قممها

الكتاب الثامن والتاسع عن أنواع الحُكم بصفه عامة ونفسية من يرئسها

الكتاب العاشر: استنتاج شامل لما سبق، ودور الشعر ونوعه في 'الجمهورية'، ومسألة أن البدن يفنى والروح تبقى خالدة

****** **** ** * ** **** ******

كشخصيه تعشق الكمال كانت أكثر الأجزاء متعة الكتاب الخامس والسادس والسابع، وخصوصاً خصوصاً 'السابع'. يا إلهي كم استمتعت به، وما به من حوار يبتدئ بقصة 'الكهف' وينطلق بها ليصل إلى "ترنيمة علم الجدل التي هي أصل يختص به الألمعي فقط، فالعقل المدُرك هو العقل الجدلي على الدوام*". قصة الكهف طويلة نوعاً ما ومحاولة اختصارها هنا ستصيبها في المقتل و تفرغها من جانبها الأهم ألا وهو التسلسل التصاعدي لفكرة فلسفية جمالها وقوتها يكمن في هذا الصعود التدريجي درجة درجة

****** **** ** * ** **** ******

لو أردت تقسيم جمهورية أفلاطون لثلاث أقسام رئيسية فإني سأختصر محتواها كالآتي:-
سياسياً:- صحيح أن الكمال يُمتِعْنِي ودائماً ما أسعى له ولكني شخصية واقعية لدرجة الإزعاج وأدرك أنه غاية لا تُدرك، وهذه أبرز مشاكل جمهورية أفلاطون، أقصد البعد عن الواقعية

يقول 'كلوكلون' أحد محاوري سقراط له:- [إنك نحَّاتٌ، يا سقراط، لقد صنعت لحكامنا تماثيل آيةً في الجمال]

مع أن الجملة جاءت تعبيراً عن الإعجاب الكبير بما قاله سقراط وتأييده ولكني وجدتها تعبيراً عن القصور في فعالية الفكرة. فعلاً هم كما وصفهم كلوكلون بالتماثيل، أشخاص من عالم الخيال يمتازون بالكمال المطلق الذي أرى أنه غاية لا تدرك وواقع من المستحيل تحقيقه

اقتصادياً:- هي جمهورية اقتصادها اشتراكي الذي أجده اقتصاد ظالم و الجمهورية أساسها العدل كما فهمت؟!!

اجتماعياً:-هنا العجب العجاب، والاستنفار الشديد أثناء القراءة لا أعرف كيف اختصر الموضوع بكلمة ولكن سأنقل جملة كتبتها كثيراً على صفحات هذا الجزء من الممكن أن تعطي صورة واضحة، اجتماعياً هي أشبه {بزريبة الحيوانات} أكرمكم الله، فمفهوم العائلة مختل جداً ويشترك مع الاقتصاد من جهة الاشتراكية، فلكم أن تتخيلوا ما المقصود

هنا يجب ذكر نقطة للإنصاف وهي طبيعة المجتمع في ذلك الزمن وخصوصاً وضع المرأة فيه، عندي فكرة عن الموضوع سابقاً من قراءتي لكتابين عن أرسطو وأفلاطون وعلاقتهم بالمرأة لإمام عبد الفتاح إمام في تلك الحقبة من الزمن. لكن حل سقراط جاء بان ينتقل بالمرأة وخصوصاً 'الحرة' من ظلام الحُفر إلى الجهة الأخرى من التطرف وأقصد بأن ساواها بالرجل لدرجة أن يصبح التعري أما الملأ أثناء التمارين الرياضية والمسابقات القتالية أسوة بالرجال شيء طبيعي ومن يجد فيه علة وخصوصاً من الرجال فإن العلة والخطأ أساسها في نفسه المريضة (آليين). ولكن يحسب له أنه يعتبر أول من دعا لتعليم المرأة أسوة بالرجل

****** **** ** * ** **** ******

التعريج على بعض النقاط:-

#قسًم سقراط الدول (بالعموم بعيداً عن جمهوريته) لخمسة أنواع:-
1. الدولة الأرستقراطية:- حكومة الأفضل
2. الدولة التيموقراطية:- حكومة الشرف
3. الدولة الأوليغاركيَّة:- حكومة الأغنياء
4. الدولة الديموقراطية:- حكومة الشعب
5. الاستبدادية:- حكومة الرجل الواحد

ولكم أن تتخيلوا أن هذا الترتيب تصاعدياً هو مقياس الفساد، لم استغرب طرحة التدريجي للأنواع وصفات حاكميها ونفسيتهم ولكن استغرابي الأشد هو وصفة للدولة الديموقراطية ومساوئها، أي نعم أنها غير منزهة عن الخطأ ولكنها تعتبر أقل الحكومات شراً في نظري، مع القراءة أكثر اتضحت فكرة ما يرمي له. سقراط يعتبر أن هذه الدولة "الأعظم تنوعاً للطبائع الإنسانية والفرد يكون قادراً أن ينظم حياته الخاصة كما يريد لأنها دولة أساسها الحرية*"، إلى الآن لا توجد مشكلة على ما أعتقد ولكن للعلم تعريف سقراط للحرية هو السبب في ذمِّه لها وطرحه الغريب للموضوع

الحرية بأن تفعل ما تشاء طالما أنك لن تؤذي أحد أو تنتهك القوانين المتفق عليها هذا متفق عليه، لكن سقراط أساس طرحه هو أن الحرية هي أن تفعل ما تشاء ولا تبالي بأحد فأنت حر وأقتبس هنا أكثر الأمور تطرفاً [ ويجب أن أضيف أن لا أحد ممن لا يعرف سيصدق كيف تكون الحرية التي لدى الحيوانات التي هي تحت سيادة الإنسان. إنها ستكون أعظم بكثير في الديموقراطية منها في أيَّة دولة أخرى لأنه يحق القول: "هي الكلاب، كما يقول المثل، هي ربَّة بيتها". وتمتلك الأحصنة والحمير طريقة للسير في موازاة مع كل الحقوق والجلال للرجل الحرّ وستدهس أي شخص ممن يأتي في طريقها إذا لم تُخلَ لها الطريق. إن كل شيء جاهز ليتفجر تماماً بالحرية] ... 'عجبي' يا فيلسوف يا سقراط!!! على رأي صلاح جاهين

# في جمهورية أفلاطون هناك تكتيك حازم حتى تنجح الخطة، من طبيعة المباح والغير مباح وتصنيف السُّكان حسب طبيعتهم وتجهيزهم بدنياً وعقلياً لمهامهم. جميل كل ما ذكره ولكنه يتكلَّم عن طبيعة بشرية التي بطبعها لها شواذ يشذون عن القاعدة ولن تكتمل الصورة المطلوبة أبداً لما يريده. و لأن شرط تحقق ما يريد هو نجاح الخطة 100%، وصفت سكَّانها بالآليين في بداية مراجعتي

# لفت انتباهي الشعر المسموح به في جمهورية أفلاطون [لكن علينا أن نبقى ثابتين في حكمنا أن الترانيم إلى الآلهة و الثناءات للرجال الشهيرين الفاضلين، هي الشعر الوحيد الذي يجب أن نقبله في دولتنا. لأنك إذا تخطَّيت ذلك وسمحت لعروس الشعر المعسولة أن تدخل، إما في مقاطع شعر البطولة أو الشعر الوجداني الغنائي، بدلاً من دخول القانون وعقل البشر الذي اعتُبِرَ الأفضل على الدوام بالرِّضا المشترك، فلن يكون الحكّام في دولتنا سوى اللذة والألم]

# هذا الكتاب سيكون متعة بلا حدود لمن يهوى التعرض للأمور الفكرية بجدلية وبمسميّات ونظريات أضمن بسماعها لأول مرة بالإضافة لتفصيص للفكرة لعدة أجزاء والخوص في تفاصيلها

#لا أعرف لماذا أحسست أن سقراط لو عاصر الإسلام لأسلم فوراً

# قرأت المحاورة بترجمة جيدة جداً لشوقي داود تمراز

# لماذا ثلاث نجوم؟! خمس نجوم للمتعة الفكرية ونجمة لجمهورية أفلاطون

#أخيراً هل أجرؤ على القول يا ترى أني أتمنى أن لا أكون قد نسيت شيئاً؟

______________________________________

• ما بين "...*" مقتبس بتصرف
• ما بين [...] مقتبس
• وتستمر الرحلة مع المحاورات ......إلى الجزء الثاني

(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Feb 24, 2013 John Carncross rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: reviewed

The first thing I noticed was that the arguments were not rigorous at all. It is more like listening to a polite conversation where different ideas are knocked around.

I remember that Plato banishes the poets from his utopia because they persuade us by being beautiful, and he thinks it is important for reason to rule alone.

Also, there is some strange religious stuff going on here. Reincarnation and drinking from a cup that make us forget everything from former lives before we are born. Weird. It...more

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 17, 2007 Thomas Pfaff rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

This seemed like an appropriate book to read in the new milleneium. So I did. It was interesting. Some say it is the template for socialism.

Some say it is the template for democracy.
People say lots of things about it.

The concept of reading Plato's Republic is pretentious.
So I admit it- I'm at times such a little snot.

Some idjut on NPR said the other day that Plato's Republic was just sooooooooooooo much more enlightening after the third reading! :-o If only everyone would give Socrates & A...more This seemed like an appropriate book to read in the new milleneium. So I did. It was interesting. Some say it is the template for socialism.

Some say it is the template for democracy.
People say lots of things about it.

The concept of reading Plato's Republic is pretentious.
So I admit it- I'm at times such a little snot.

Some idjut on NPR said the other day that Plato's Republic was just sooooooooooooo much more enlightening after the third reading! :-o If only everyone would give Socrates & Aristotle a third go-around!

After hearing that I think it is a fairly conceited, elitist and self-absorbed thing to admit to having read this. I will... but only because I've already listed half a dozen motorcycle books along for the ride. And that guy on NPR made me laugh my head off.

I thought that Plato's Republic was kind of an expansion of codes given to people by the likes of Moses, Hammurabi, etc.

It is surprising to read thru the book and come across ideas... then realize that people have been thinking about things like this for thousands of years- just like you've always thought they might have been! In a sense people haven't changed much. At least moderately educated people like me in some sense probably haven't changed much. It is surprising to think about how many more educated people there are now than back then. The bar clearly has been raised.

I also read this about the same time as a book that I think was entitled "Letters from George Washington." There was some crossover. Also a huge amount of difference.

The style of ancient writing is of course different. Reading letters from George Washington made him seem like a real human being. Reading dialogue between Aristotle and Socrates made them seem no different than before. Maybe I think worse of them after hearing some of the stranger musings in Plato's Republic.

Plato's Republic has a feeling of prescience about it. Overall I liked the book. The dialog between Aristotle and Socrates gets a bit old... especially when it diverts from dialog and goes to monologue.

(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 15, 2009 Christopher rated it 4 of 5 stars

I'm really glad a read The Republic. Even though I knew anecdotes for the books, and the discourse centered around the ideal city-state, I did not realize that it was really about the nature of Justice.
I was surprised to discover how much I disagreed with some points, in particular Socrates' final definition of Justice. There were many chilling moments when I contrasted his conclusions to such dystopian literature such as Brave New World. I was also heavily struck by his criticisms of Democracy...more

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 31, 2011 William rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: translation, greece, 04-bce

Halfway through now and the ability to see the book solely as a metaphor for one's personal moral development becomes hard to see. The state Plato describes here is one that is highly prohibitive in almost every aspect. Arts and culture are severely controlled for propaganda purposes. There is a complete inability to view open, transparent government as an option. The guardians must be lied to and deceived constantly if they are to develop correctly. Moreover, to establish what we might call a f...more

3 likes · like · see review

Nov 19, 2009 Steven Peterson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The Cornford translation of Plato is still one of the standards, even though other translations might well be better in this age. It is also the version that I used as an undergraduate student at Bradley University in my Political Philosophy class! To get to the point: Socrates' greatest student was Plato. In "The Republic," Plato, through the voice of Socrates, provided the keenest metaphor to describe his understanding of the problem cod defining "reality." His allegory of the cave serves as t...more The Cornford translation of Plato is still one of the standards, even though other translations might well be better in this age. It is also the version that I used as an undergraduate student at Bradley University in my Political Philosophy class! To get to the point: Socrates' greatest student was Plato. In "The Republic," Plato, through the voice of Socrates, provided the keenest metaphor to describe his understanding of the problem cod defining "reality." His allegory of the cave serves as the takeoff point. Socrates describes the situation to Glaucon thus:

[Socrates:]: Imagine the condition of men living in a sort of cavernous chamber underground, with an entrance open to the light and a long passage all down the cave. Here they have been from childhood, chained by the leg and also by the neck, so that they cannot move and can see only what is in front of them, because the chains will not let them turn their heads. At some distance higher up is the light of a fire burning behind them; and between the prisoners and the fire is a track with a parapet built along it, like a screen at a puppet-show, which hides the performers while they show their puppets over the top. . .
Now behind this parapet imagine persons carrying along various artificial objects, including figures of men and animals in wood or stone or other materials, which project above the parapet. Naturally, some of the persons will be talking, others silent.

[Glaucon:]: It is a strange picture. . .and a strange sort of prisoners.

[Socrates:]: Like ourselves. . .; for in the first place prisoners so confined would have seen nothing of themselves or one another, except the shadows thrown by the firelight on the wall of the cave facing them, would they?. . .And they would have seen as little of the objects carried past. . .Now, if they could talk to one another, would they not suppose that their words referred only to those passing shadows which they saw?

[Glaucon:]: Necessarily.

[Socrates:]: And suppose their prison had an echo from the wall facing them? When one of the people crossing behind them spoke, they could only suppose that the sound came from the shadow passing before their eyes. . .In every way, then, such prisoners would recognize as reality nothing but the shadows of those artificial objects.

Next, Plato has Socrates examine what happens if someone is taken from the cave out into the light of day. This person then comes to understand that all is illusion and shadows in the cave--whereas earlier that person had defined the images as reality. In this sense, through education, one could come to see reality and escape the confines of the cave. And when that person would re-enter the cave, he would realize the nature if illusions and be able to try to illuminate with his (or her) wisdom the lives of the people in the cave. This, of course, would be difficult since the denizens of that dark region would not themselves have directly experienced the light of knowledge.

Who is best able to see what is outside of the cave? The philosophers, of course. Plato believes that there are absolutes, "forms," out there in the "real world." Circles that we humans craft can never equal the ideal type "out there," what we might call "circularity." There is an abstract idea of circularity, the perfect circle, the essence of circleness. This is the truth of the object. Only through training can a person begin to understand and appreciate these forms, these ideal types. Only those whose passion and talent is the pursuit of knowledge and who can come to possess wisdom are able to see these "forms." Only then can the subject properly "see" the object, in this case circularity. Note, in contrast, the arguments by the Sophists that the subject is incapable of properly perceiving and understanding reality--even if there is a reality to be apprehended!

And, in his metaphor of gold, silver, and bronze, Plato makes this even more explicit. Each person, he claims, is dominated by one of three elements--appetite (bronze), courage (silver), and wisdom (gold). It is in our nature at birth which one of these characterizes each of us. Only those whose central core is gold can ever hope to see the forms and understand the absolute truth that exists. The rest are, in effect, condemned to a life in the cave. Education is needed to take the raw material within a person and shape that individual's capacity to come to see truth, to apprehend the forms or ideal types.

In the end, then, only a few can ever come to know reality. And it takes them much of their lives before they are adequately enough trained to accomplish this Olympian goal. It is unsurprising, of course, that Plato argues that these few, these philosopher-kings (or queens, since he accepts that women may be capable of these same feats of intellectual insight), should also become the rulers of the ideal society. That is the nature of his "Republic."

This is one of the great works of political philosophy. Its assumption that there is a "special class" suited to rule is open to question. His elitism will not sit well with many readers. The belief that humans can apprehend objective reality is also open to question. His sense that individuals are predestined to serve as "producers," "auxiliaries," or "philosopher kings/queens" (yes, he felt that women might become leaders, an unusual conclusion for the time) will not convince many contemporary readers. However, this is one of the standard translations and provides a credible entrée to one of Plato's greatest works.
(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Sep 17, 2008 Erin rated it 4 of 5 stars

This was a tough book to get through, mostly because the ten chapters are so big, that it was hard to find a place to stop. If you're not familiar with it, it is a conversation between Socrates and some of his pupils or followers beginning with the question of who has a better life, a just man or an unjust man. The students make a pretty good argument at the outset as to why a person who is unjust but keeps it hidden is happier than the just man with a bad reputation. Socrates then begins to bui...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 06, 2008 Tyler rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: _Academics, Philosophy Students

Recommended to Tyler by: _Socrates

Shelves: philosophy

This essential work of philosophy suffers from its antiquity. Long stretches of Plato's famous dialog make the point over and over, too much for today's readers. Though repetition may have been useful in ancient times, it's through modern lenses that I read. Any editor today would have chopped fifty pages off this treatise in an eye blink.

Through these lenses too, the ideal state Plato suggests will make a reader's hair stand on end, knowing as we do how his proposals can only end. By standards...more

4 likes · like · see review

Feb 04, 2008 Dan rated it 1 of 5 stars

I'm not sure why people read this. For those interested in the history of philosophy it's undoubtedly important. For everyone else... meh. A lot of people comment that Plato deals seriously with all the big issues. Well, he brings them up, but never seriously engages with them.
Maybe the problem is that I'm reading this at 25 after spending a couple years seriously reading philosophy. Maybe Popper inoculated me. I might have felt differently if I started reading The Republic with a less critical...more I'm not sure why people read this. For those interested in the history of philosophy it's undoubtedly important. For everyone else... meh. A lot of people comment that Plato deals seriously with all the big issues. Well, he brings them up, but never seriously engages with them.
Maybe the problem is that I'm reading this at 25 after spending a couple years seriously reading philosophy. Maybe Popper inoculated me. I might have felt differently if I started reading The Republic with a less critical eye. I honestly found myself giggling at some of Plato's arguments, due to their specious, and often obviously false nature. Plato's rhetorical style is also laughable.

The format for much of the book is this: a topic is introduced, "rules for allowable art" for example. Next, Plato makes a dishonest but true-on-the-surface argument. Listener agrees wholeheartedly. Plato uses that simple argument to argue for some ridiculous position like actors not being allowed to play bad men or women or children because they might become like bad men, women, or children.

My big criticism is that for most of the book, the listeners do nothing but agree. They are at least interesting in the first book, but by the second have been reduced to a sycophantic chorus.

This is a representative snippet of Plato proving that an unjust person is not clever or good.

“And about knowledge and ignorance in general; see whether
you think that any man who has knowledge ever would wish to
have the choice of saying or doing more than another man who
has knowledge. Would he not rather say or do the same as his
like in the same case?

That, I suppose, can hardly be denied.

And what of the ignorant? would he not desire to have more
than either the knowing or the ignorant?”

His reasoning goes: a knowledgeable man never tries to outdo or be different from another knowledgeable man, and knowledge is good. An unjust man tries to outdo other unjust men, so is not good. There's more to the argument than that, but no one ever challenges this (arguably false) assumption that competition and difference are inherently unwise and ungood. If Plato doesn't bother to think about that, why should I bother to think about Plato. There's a dozen better Greek texts, and a rereading of The Orestia will teach you a lot more about life. If you want to think about justice pick up some Rawls. Seriously, this should have been buried with Sparta.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

chris The arguments he writes about education were interesting when I was taking the History of Ed. course back as an undergraduate. I was just thinking of...more
Feb 05, 2008 12:34pm

Alyoshka I think you are vastly oversimplifying his arguments. Firsty, you cannot quote Plato out of context because he purposefully leads the reader through t...more
Jun 17, 2008 08:38am

Tyler The problem with Plato is that, since his time, philosophy has advanced so far that his dialogs look amateurish. It's hard for the modern reader to se...more
Jul 04, 2008 10:08am

Jun 07, 2008 Tim rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

When I wrote this review I failed to mention Bloom’s essay (and translation). It’s possibly the best commentary on Plato I’ve read. An overly simple summary is that Bloom suggests many of Socrates’ proposals were intentionally preposterous, with the aim of leading his interlocutors to grasp that no truly legitimate political system is possible, and that the best course for individuals is to tend their souls, necessarily within a polity, going along with its requirements as necessary, but avoidin...more When I wrote this review I failed to mention Bloom’s essay (and translation). It’s possibly the best commentary on Plato I’ve read. An overly simple summary is that Bloom suggests many of Socrates’ proposals were intentionally preposterous, with the aim of leading his interlocutors to grasp that no truly legitimate political system is possible, and that the best course for individuals is to tend their souls, necessarily within a polity, going along with its requirements as necessary, but avoiding involvement in it as much as possible. Also, he suggests much of what Socrates says is not a definite political program, but directed to the particular characters of his interlocutors (Glaucon and Adeimantus) to lead them towards philosophy and away from their particular weaknesses (as Socrates saw them).

Bloom makes a very good case for this interpretation, which I’ve grossly oversimplified (and left important parts out). There’ll never be an end to the debate, but this essay is one to be reckoned with by anyone interested in the Republic. Regarding the translation, it’s very precise; someone with a little knowledge of Greek can often see the Greek through the English. This makes for less flowing language; with a lesser dialogue such as the Euthyphro I prefer a more literary translation, but it seems appropriate for such an important work. My review was:

In the West, at least, this is the touchstone of all political philosophy, and Plato pretty much covered all the issues people have been fighting and arguing about since people started wondering how societies should be organized and governed. It's easy to say that Plato's ideal state is nutty beyond imagination, but that misses the point. He asked the questions that really matter, and just about all of them, and considered them deeply and carefully, and then came up with his nutty system.

What about us? We live in a largely unquestioning age - maybe virtually everyone has. But it’s hard for, say, a modern American to read Plato’s assessment of the relative merits and demerits of different political systems and come away with the kind of mindless idolization of “democracy” with which we’re inundated by politicians and the media. It’s easy to say Plato’s system is goofy, but do you ever hear anyone in America publicly saying, “Democracy has a lot of serious weaknesses, one of them being its tendency to develop a culture needing life support.” Or, “Elites provide some real benefits to society, as does an aristocratic element.” Could those ideas have some merit? Well, we never even get that far since those ideas are too blasphemous for our society.

It’s funny how open-minded we consider our modern selves. But when’s the last time you heard a serious, thoughtful critique of modern liberal democracy (as opposed to a silly, neo-Marxist rant)? Plato had the courage, the detachment, and the brilliance to give his honest assessment of the various systems, compare them and then judge them. His purpose, at least apparently, had little to do with an agenda other than asking a question – what might constitute a good government? And not only good, but the best? Those questions require asking and answering questions about human nature and the nature of social relationships. Plato asks so well and considers so well, and so comprehensively, that his ideal system (regardless of whether he was even very serious about it) isn’t the issue. The significance, I think, is that he gets us to consider all the important questions he considers, many of which we otherwise probably wouldn’t have considered, and among other things to then uncover our unexamined assumptions and prejudices and reassess them.
(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 23, 2008 Lauren rated it 5 of 5 stars

I have always enjoyed Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. I love to think of truths visually, often using metaphors to articulate and organize thoughts. The Allegory of the Cave is an excellent metaphor of truth versus reality or pretence versus perception. I believe in absolutes. There is truth, and then there is what we perceive to be true. Because everyone is viewing ultimate truth from their own perspective, truth is often misconceived as ambiguous, “in the eye of the beholder,” or circumstantial....more I have always enjoyed Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. I love to think of truths visually, often using metaphors to articulate and organize thoughts. The Allegory of the Cave is an excellent metaphor of truth versus reality or pretence versus perception. I believe in absolutes. There is truth, and then there is what we perceive to be true. Because everyone is viewing ultimate truth from their own perspective, truth is often misconceived as ambiguous, “in the eye of the beholder,” or circumstantial. I do not suppose to know what truth is anymore than any other, yet I do believe that one must understand that when an opinion or a definition a truth is presented, it is based on limited perspectives.
Plato defines truth as the light behind us that casts the shadows we see. He further explains that we are bound to see only the shadows and therefore mistaken them for truth. Plato states, “To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.” . Paul, in the New Testament, describes this as looking through a glass darkly (See 1 Corinthians 13:12). Both wise men realize that ultimate truth is something beyond our comprehension with our present limitations. Yet both also affirm that obtaining this truth is possible over time.
Plato further explores the possibility of perceiving actual truth. What if the prisoners were set free and turned towards the light? What would the light do to these prisoners? Plato answers: “The glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities…” After viewing the shadows in the dark, the immediate change to light will be painful and will cause him to seek the dark where he is comfortable. I remember when I was nineteen and realized the current path I was on was not only inaccurate but quite destructive. I decided to seek a new way of life. I began attending church, yet the change was quite uncomfortable. Each week after church, I would retire to the pool hall, my comfort zone. Even though I knew that church offered a better way, it was difficult to make the change. The glare distressed me and caused me to seek refuge in the comforts of my cave. Understanding the light was not enough to overcome the discomforts it caused.
Plato assumes that before we get to the point of this understanding, we will first reject its validity altogether. Because the shadows are all we have ever known, if given the chance to turn and see reality, we would dismiss it as fiction. Surely one glimpse at something that goes against all previous paradigms must be inaccurate. One might assume that from a logical standpoint, we would see the light, the actual images and the shadows cast on the wall we have been observing throughout our lifetime and conclude that the shadows are merely a distortion of a greater reality. Yet I oftentimes see contradictions of this assumption: people fighting for untruths, turning a blind eye to greater realities. I am sure I suffer from this on a more consistent basis than I would like to admit.
Plato then supposes that one can be convinced of the truthfulness of the light with gradual acclimation. The scriptures describe this learning process as “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little” (See Isaiah 28:10). In fact, most learning does take place through this process. For instance, I cannot learn calculus until I have an understanding of lower mathematical principles. Plato states that “he will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best…” Through a slow and steady process, we can begin to understand greater realities.
Once an understanding of this light is achieved, we should not assume that we have all truth, but rather a knowledge of where to obtain it. Plato further instructs us that with this understanding comes a responsibility to be patient with those who do not yet have it. Those still in the cave will not understand this knowledge and even look down on it. “Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes.” Furthermore those with this enlightenment would be bored or even irritated with the activities of the misinformed. My favorite quote in the Allegory of the Cave is where Plato is defining the two types of blindness and the others’ response to it: “Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light… And he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason.” I believe it is important to understand where an individual has been and how they perceive reality. Realizing one’s limitations or strengths will surely make us more compassionate and in turn, more capable of gaining greater perspective.

(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Jul 18, 2007 Zoeita rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: anyone

Shelves: academia

i freakin' love this book!!! of course, it helps that i had a most excellant professor who guided our naive freshman class through the text. the second time around, i had a wider breadth of expierence and again, an excellant professor to facilitate discussion in an even smaller class. plato lays out the groundwork for much of what was to become Western Civilization as we know it. i agree w/much of what plato says, particularly when it comes to focusing on encouraging the traits or morals that on...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 15, 2012 Mohannad Najjar rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

حسناً، انتهينا من قراءة الكتاب.

أفلاطون في هذا الكتاب: عبيط جداً.

واستفدت من قراءة النسق الذي خرج فيه الكتاب، واستشفاف ملامح التفكير اليوناني في ذلك الوقت؛ أي قبل حوالي 2400 سنة؛ استفدت من هذه القراءة التاريخية أكثر بكثير من استفادتي من التفكير الأفلاطوني نفسه.

لقد قرأنا هذا الكتاب ضمن نشاط قمنا به مع بعض الأصدقاء؛ إقامة (نادي كتاب الفلسفة السياسية) لنقرأ فيه النتاج البشري كلّه الذي وُلِدَت و عاشت فيه نظرية الدولة/ مفهومها؛ وعلاقة الفرد بالسلطة؛ وكيف نشأ التفكير السياسي على مرّ التاريخ.

كانت جمهورية...more

4 likes · like · see review

Apr 03, 2013 Luís rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites, classics, philosophy, politics, history, greek-literature, read-in-2013

Através de Manuel dos Santos,militante socialista:
"como o leão não se defende das armadilhas e a raposa não se defende dos lobos, há que ser raposa para descobrir as armadilhas e leão para amedrontar os lobos". Citação retirada do Príncipe de Maquiavel, transformada em conselho aos líderes políticos que apoio, respeito e admiro."

Saber governar uma nação é uma virtude ...

Com isto não quero eu dizer que deva mudar de posição política em relação ao "crash" económico e social que neste momento estam...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 21, 2010 AC rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy-history-of

There are two volumes to this set. Shorey's is the best English translation, bar none - and probably the best translation there is -- Though Robin's French translation is important, as is Apelt's German. They, however, do occasionally get things wrong.

But what really makes this Loeb most valuable are Shorey's notes. In reading Shorey, however, one must follow up on the passages cited in the notes, as Shorey will not do the reader's work for him.

Shorey once said that there are many books that sh...more

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 16, 2007 Brian rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: people who are ready to accept that democracy is lame

Shelves: philosophy, politics

This book is not for the faint of heart. It may in fact not be for anyone outside a select few who are either pretentious and intelligent or foolish and masochistic - or some combination of both.

The main thing one can take away from this book is the ability to tell the next person who says, "Democracy started back in ancient Greece with Plato and Co.," to shove off. The book attempts to answer the question of whether being good for goodness' sake is truly important, and in the process outlines P...more

1 like · like · see review

May 18, 2013 JP rated it 5 of 5 stars

This particular version divides the dialogue into 10 chapters, though the division has varied over the years. While some commentary finds this to be the pinnacle of Plato's work, I find it less captivating than some of the others. (I'm sure there is some depth that I do not perceive, however the style means as much to me as the depth.) The key elements are brought out through the ongoing conversation regarding the hypothetical creation of an ideal state, all of which is done in pursuit of Socrat...more This particular version divides the dialogue into 10 chapters, though the division has varied over the years. While some commentary finds this to be the pinnacle of Plato's work, I find it less captivating than some of the others. (I'm sure there is some depth that I do not perceive, however the style means as much to me as the depth.) The key elements are brought out through the ongoing conversation regarding the hypothetical creation of an ideal state, all of which is done in pursuit of Socrate's attempt to define justice. The ideal state is composed of three groups of people. The commoners are still better educated than the citizens of other cities and limited in number via ejection. The guardians are chosen from the best children, raised in common, educated in only that which advances their status as guardian (good-bye Homer, and anything mourning death), mated based on ability and without marriage, and trained in combat from an early age. The most advanced of them also become philosopher-kings. All citizens are trained in varying degrees in only that which is deemed beneficial: gymnastics, mathematics, etc, though in each, only the desired elements are maintained. For example, only certain appropriate musical rhythms are permitted. Eventually we come to the point of justice, in which we find that these elements of the state are in harmony (the spirit and the mind; the peace and the aggression, the leadership and the philosophy). Socrates then brings us to the individual, for whom we find justice is defined as the same harmony of those elements within each person. [return][return]It is both intriguing and somewhat dissapointing to find exact phrases later seen in the Wealth of Nations and perhaps the Federalist. For example, these early thinkers already proclaim "when there is an income-tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of the income." (p. 306, Book I) Later, they also convey a perfect understanding of the division of labor within a city. Then again, the quotations from Homer, such as "And the soul, with shrilling cry, passed like smoke beneath the earth." (Illiad) were borrowed by them and quite welcome (and referenced). Within all of the hypothesizing, a basic observation is made about the motivation of rich men vs. laborers. When ill, the carpenter sees a doctor. If advised that he must rest in order to recover, the carpenter does not because he cannot and so goes on and either lives or dies. Either way, he fulfills his purpose and does not waste away with a lingering death. Alternatively, the rich man has no occupation and can waste away. The other most memorable discussion concerned the progress through and traits of the major systems of government (dictatorship, democracy, etc.) I found the Republic to be an interesting discourse, containing some fascinating major points (about the soul, the motivations of men, and the organization of states) as well as some interesting sidetrips into other matters.(less)

like · see review

Jul 03, 2010 Bryan added it · review of another edition

Life in an unreal ideal world: Plato's 'Republic' is one of the most important works of ancient Greek philosophy, and one of the foundation pieces of political science and political philosophy of that and subsequent ages. It was one of the first pieces I read when undertaking a political science degree.

Plato was not only a great philosopher, but also a great writer. While few master the classical Greek language sufficient to undertake its study in the original language, the text appears in coun...more Life in an unreal ideal world: Plato's 'Republic' is one of the most important works of ancient Greek philosophy, and one of the foundation pieces of political science and political philosophy of that and subsequent ages. It was one of the first pieces I read when undertaking a political science degree.

Plato was not only a great philosopher, but also a great writer. While few master the classical Greek language sufficient to undertake its study in the original language, the text appears in countless translated forms of varying degrees of integrity. This particular translation is one that is often used in schools, and is fairly careful to the original text.

The text is traditionally divided into ten sections, although some scholars see this as being a function of the papyrus and scrolls of original composition more than being integral to the structure of the text itself. One of the interesting features of the Republic is that it was not originally intended for scholars and philosophers primarily, but for the common (albeit educated) reader, and remains one of the more accessible texts of ancient Greek philosophy.

In typical fashion, this is done in a dialogue fashion, with the lead character Socrates (fashioned after Plato's teacher, the great philosopher Socrates, although the words Socrates utters in this and many other Platonic dialogues are undoubtedly Plato's own). There is a discussion on method (the Sophist Thrasymachus shows up early to make disparaging comments about the Socratic method) whilst trying to determine an adequate definition of justice, as well as a discussion on the virtues and/or utility of wealth and old age early in the text. Socrates moves the discussion of justice away from the individual toward the communal, and this is where the political philosophy gets played out in full.

Book II shows the setting out of an ideal city (city-states being the most common form of political organisation in Greece at the time of Plato, with Athens and other cities competing for dominant role). Division of labour becomes an immediate necessity if a city grows beyond a small village setting, according to the theory here. These essentially become classes of people, with different rights and responsibilities, and different expectations of education and material well-being. The guardians or army class is the first one introduced, including an extensive discussion of the type of education and indoctrination such a class should have - this involves political and religious aspects.

It follows from this discussion that censorship is not only tolerated, but selectively preferred. The guardian class is elaborated upon - they are to be divided into rulers and helpers (officer and enlisted class, perhaps?), and they should live separately from the city they guard, owning no private property so as to not be corrupted or corruptible.

After establishing the just foundation of the city, the discussion returns to justice for the individual (interesting to note that what is not discussed is if justice is attainable in a non-ideal city). Justice, after all, is that state when everyone is doing what he or she should be doing, not meddling in other affairs, and exhibiting the virtues of moderation, wisdom, and courage. Justice becomes one of the virtues, and is part of an inner state of the soul of one living in such a society.

Interesting parts of the Republic include the very early idea for equal rights and responsibilities for women, particularly in the guardian class. It is unclear whether Plato was aware of how self-serving his dialogue would seem, since his argument leads to the `natural' conclusion that the only ones who could really be in charge in such an ideal city would be the philosophers. Plato is not an advocate for democracy, and pokes fun quite a bit at democratic structures; he similarly disapproves of most of other types of government (oligarchy, plutocracy, timocracy, etc.) - one can discern the frustrated politician here.

However, the real power of the Republic lies in Plato's remarkable images and metaphoric stories in the second half of the dialogue. These include his expositions on theories of the Forms, and trying to explain what the Good is, and how humankind interprets such things. The images of the ship, the Sun, and the men in the cave are powerful images that have lasted in popular literature since the time of Plato.

This is a classic of Western literature and of world literature.
(less)

like · see review

Apr 22, 2013 Jaakko Ojala rated it 3 of 5 stars

The theme of the book, justice, is obviously very interesting and the way Socrates dispenses with the clearly false, but common, notions of justice is also refreshing and effective. The dialogue, especially in the beginning, moves forward like a train. And gives useful insights, though it takes a while to recollect what they were, even now a week or two after reading. Might at least doesn't make right and justice isn't doing good to the good and bad to the bad but good to both the good and the b...more

like · see review

Nov 20, 2012 Mark Fitzpatrick rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The Grube translation is what I read from college. I read it for two different classes: Political Theory and Ancient Philosophy. What can be said about one of Plato's most important works? As a landmark work in the canon of political philosophy, Plato sets out to create the most efficient society based upon his epistemology of social harmony between Forms, such as Justice and what is Good. Platonic terms that have influenced Western philosophy and pop culture are found throughout this book, incl...more

like · see review

Sep 25, 2012 Michelle rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a must-read book. Not because it is "right" or has "all the answers" but because it really gives an incite to human thinking over the course of several thousands of years, and how it is still applicable today. I actually had to cross reference things to make sure I had a valid translation because I was really surprised at how accurately he described some things---it just sounded so modern! Of course, this is also the first really old book that I have ever read, so it is natural for me to...more This is a must-read book. Not because it is "right" or has "all the answers" but because it really gives an incite to human thinking over the course of several thousands of years, and how it is still applicable today. I actually had to cross reference things to make sure I had a valid translation because I was really surprised at how accurately he described some things---it just sounded so modern! Of course, this is also the first really old book that I have ever read, so it is natural for me to be surprised.

One thing I thing most people mistake, though, is that this is not a dialogue by any sense of the word. This is a lecture of a teacher to his students. The students are, basically, yes men. They agree with just about everything he says. The one person who disagrees with him (Thrasymachus) is quickly silenced and there is a sense that he is "put in his place."

There were many things that made me sit up and think--what the heck? Firstly, a Philosopher advocating the rule of Philosophers....smells of agenda and bias to me. Part of that was breaking his own rule in the ideal society; you know, the one where everyone has ONE job and they focus on that. By that logic, a Ruler is A Ruler and a Philosopher is a Philosopher and they can not be one and the same. He also goes on to state that the Philosophers (who are therefore the rulers) must detest and abhor lies. BUT he also says that the Rulers must be willing to lie to there subjects, though they must never be lied to. People on some reviews state that Plato believes in the classification of people between "gold, silver, and bronze." This is not entirely accurate--he flat out states that this is a lie that the people must be convinced to believe. With this, they are able to control the people.

He is very big on censorship, and his description of how the State runs is akin more to Tyranny and brainwashing than any ideal. People are basically stripped of their individual freedom for the sake of the unity of the State---but they are raised to believe that this is just and good based on the propaganda of the education they receive. He specifically says that there can be no advancements in things like music because it leads to "discord" which he views as the cause of evil. Children, women, and education are all communal. The "guardians" live in communal housing and receive food and clothing for their services---not money--and are basically raised with the doctrine that they are the best and need no more. Not only are thought and education censored heavily, but so is marriage and having children. He basically advocates mandatory abortion of newborns that are A) not born through the sanction of the State and B) that are defective. He also sanctions the abortion of born children for population control...which, in some ways, makes a lot of sense. Of course, this is a sign of their era as medicine could not support the life of the child anyway, but first point is somewhat disturbing. I remember reading of such a society in "the Giver" by Lois Duncan.

The one thing that almost made me put the book down was his abhorrent hatred toward Painting and "imitative" arts of any kind. He basically called them inferior aspects of an inferior soul and completely unable to see the "Truth". Basically, only the Philosopher (AKA Plato and his ilk) can see the Truth, have ultimate wisdom and knowledge. etc He assumes (in my opinion, wrongly) that imitation can not know and is therefore the furthest from Truth in all the sciences. As an artist, I can say that this is blatantly wrong and just plain frustrating. True artists study their subject on all levels so that they can accurately present their image. Many of the great artists know as much about anatomy and physiology, architecture, and even horseman ship as actual professionals. I could argue that perhaps the Artist (whether poetry, tragedy, theater, painter, or musician) sees more of Truth than the Philosopher, who is so far removed from reality and life that he can not connect what he has learned through books to what is in actuality life. I am thankful that this part was at the end, or I would never have been able to finish the book such was the insult that I received from his arrogance.

And Plato strikes me as very arrogant and completely unaware of Human Nature. He assumes that all things will follow the rules which are laid out for the building of his perfect society, disregarding all things that are human. This, though, strikes me as common when people create any ideal, so he is not unique in this. In creating his ideal state, he has created something that has never been properly observed in history (even up to now, though many have tried to recreate it in Communism, I feel..gonna have to read the Manifesto to accurately compare). Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny have all been in existence for a while, so they are easy to analysis and see the "evils" in them. Aristocracy, too, has been observed and yet because he eliminates Human Nature, he ignores the evils that it, too creates.

So, in all of this--why is this book worth reading? I think it really puts things into perspective. It really makes you sit up and think...wow, that is happening RIGHT NOW. It is also good to see how other philosophies rode on the tail of the ancient philosophers and how human thinking has grown and evolved.

(on a side note, I read the version translated by Benjamin Jowett)(less)

like · see review

topics	posts	views	last activity
Where are we? (United States)	3	59	Dec 13, 2012 10:36am
Any one has read Plato's The Republic ?	18	138	Sep 11, 2012 11:02am
are there really only 4 virtues?	3	36	May 18, 2012 10:13am
Plato's definition of morality	7	167	May 01, 2012 03:06am

title link	preview: The Republic
avg rating	preview: The Republic Goodreads rating: 3.81 (52799 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30289.The_Republic?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1312499953l/30289.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30289.The_Republic?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Republic by Plato[/url]

The Republic

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (315)

Videos About This Book

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Plato

Books by Plato

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Republic

Quotes from The Republic