Goodreads | The Republic of Plato

Jason rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

04/04/08

Read in April, 2008

(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...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

1 comments

Lauren rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

01/23/08

Read in January, 2008

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 circ...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

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Tim rated it:

06/07/08

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, b...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

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Jon rated it:

07/23/08

Read in July, 2008

What can you say about a book like the Republic? Is it a book that's available for review? Can it be judged by the same standard as any other book? Or does its distinction entitle it to an appraisal all its own? And where do we look to make our assessment? By modern standards? Or is that anachronistic? Rather, should we rank Plato among his contemporaries and judge his product with whom it shared company?

My effort to enter an opinion about Plato's essay is frustrated by these considerations-...more What can you say about a book like the Republic? Is it a book that's available for review? Can it be judged by the same standard as any other book? Or does its distinction entitle it to an appraisal all its own? And where do we look to make our assessment? By modern standards? Or is that anachronistic? Rather, should we rank Plato among his contemporaries and judge his product with whom it shared company?

My effort to enter an opinion about Plato's essay is frustrated by these considerations--it is unclear to me where to start or how to conduct the analysis for want of comparison. To be sure, the Republic is a very fine book, and it would be the height of arrogance to set myself in opposition to the great tradition of philosophic thought and the most esteemed opinions, which, so rarely of one mind, agree on this point: that the Republic is a masterwork. Neither would I hazard so bold an enterprise as to try and unmake Plato, thrusting at him with criticisms in a clandestine effort to usurp his authority with my own. The rule of that philosopher king is too well established, no single-handed conspiracy can undo it. Besides, to those ambitious upstarts, heed the advise "If you covet the crown, abjure the knife."

But I am equally uninspired by questions that explore the opposite opinion. The Republic may be a great book, but it is not obviously so; and I leave it to the sycophants to keep the book cover polished, the binding unbroken, entertaining questions about just how terrific it is--whether the book is the greatest? Or merely great?

If the Republic were a ship, she would be a heavily ladened one, rich with treasure, but with a deep draught. If you could seize and master her I have no doubt she will reward you with great wealth--filled as it is with challenging, timeless questions, answers of a kind, fun if tedious analysis, beautiful imagery and discourse that makes space for every sort of interpretation. But she is not a ship for all seasons. With such a deep draught she will not enter every harbor. What's more, the burden of her freight is large, so the advance will be slow, the course difficult, and not always certain. And, as is the case with any long endeavor, difficulty creates doubt, and the impatient traveler may yearn for land, keeping watch there, and lose site of the voyage. Or, perhaps worse, because of her size and difficulty they will lose control of her and, lost at sea, abandon all hope.

If this metaphor is a good one, then the Republic, though a great book, comes with great risk and great cost. It is not an ordinary read. Even more, I would go so far as to say that the book requires so much from the reader, both care and craft, that its rewards are nearly out of proportion with its demands, and, even then, only when restitution is made. It is for this reason that I give the Republic four stars instead of five....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Dan rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

02/04/08

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 ...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

Like this review? yes

3 comments

Thomas rated it:

(review of isbn 0872201368)

08/17/07

bookshelves: history

Read in March, 2000

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 woul...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

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

Brendan rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

09/26/07

Read in November, 2001

recommends it for: everyone

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

Seriously.

And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of a retarded person. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is retarded.

Every single one of his works goes like this:

SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Lis...more

Like this review? yes (7 people liked it)

3 comments

relyt rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

06/06/08

bookshelves: philosophy

Read in June, 2008

recommended to relyt by: _Socrates
recommends it for: _Academics, Philosophy Students

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 eyeblink.

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 stan...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comments

John rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

11/21/07

bookshelves: reviewed

Read in November, 2007

recommends it for: Hippies

I have been thinking a lot about justice in the context of my very limited experience in education. I have not always made the distinction between being authoritative and being authoritarian. I do feel that there is a difference, though. I have noticed that the more authoritative I am, the more successful my students are in our sessions. I do not think that I am the sort of person that needs to have power and control in order to by happy. On the contrary, being expected to lead makes me feel v...more

Like this review? yes

8 comments

M.C. rated it:

(review of isbn 0872201368)

03/14/08

Read in March, 2008

Let us first see to the burden of facts: "The Republic" was practically a conversation between conscious and unconscious figures that to many would stand as intellectuals, philosophers, and so forth. As to what to the nature of these conversations is, I will leave that for you to figure out.

Have you ever imagined or came across a world of some sort in which everyone simply agrees with you and only stops when they have been nodding in agreement for so long that the questions they as...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

aisha rated it:

07/20/07

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...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Everyman rated it:

05/21/08

bookshelves: my-library

Read in January, 1967

All the criticisms of Plato are valid. He raises straw arguments. He manipulates discussions unfairly. He doesn't offer realistic solutions. And so no.

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 h...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Zoeita rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

07/18/07

bookshelves: academia

Read in January, 1996

recommends it for: anyone

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

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Mark rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

11/02/07

Read in October, 2007

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 ...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Ryan rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

05/10/08

The Republic… the cave metaphor is pretty cool. It is basically achieving mental freedom by 'sitting in a cave on the outside of ordinary aspects of culture, society, people, places, things that are attached until topics are revealed or can be observed in true light.' Staying in "the cave" until you are ready to see the fire, sun, true light of things may not have desired outcome for everyone.

I somewhat agreed with what Plato has Socrates saying, aligning with Socrates on the to...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Covert.adrian rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

06/27/07

Read in October, 2002

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

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

David rated it:

07/17/08

bookshelves: symposium

This is an apalling book. It gives the old bean a good shaking, and I find this very unacceptable. Seems Socrates had a little chat with Thrasymachus before the conversation (during the festival), and said "Thrasymachus, we are both scoundrels, you and I. We both know that tyrants are really the happiest of men. I mean look how much money they have, and look at their following...! But do me a favor and let's put on a good show and what not for the boys, shall we? On my cue, I'll signal yo...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Johnny rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

03/03/08

In all reality, "The Republic" needs to be presented by an expert--this is not a book for HS honors English. The themes, provocations, and ideas laid out by Plato are not for those prone to simplification. Of course we all can attack the suggestions of eugenics and the dissolution of the nuclear family, but the fundamental important of this text is its acknowledgment of monism. Written before the onslaught of modern religion and its assumed battle of "God" v. "God,"...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Mo rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

02/16/08

Read in October, 2006

I found this book almost unbearable to get through. It really drove me crazy that no one in the whole ever disagreed with Plato! All of Plato's arguments build upon the assumption that whatever Plato says is relevant and is correct. I found myself arguing with Plato while I was reading this book because it seemed like no one else would.

What I do understand and can appreciate is that all of the arguments presented in this book are solely theoretical arguments. I think it is important to p...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Erick rated it:

(review of isbn 0140449140)

01/10/08

Read in September, 2004

Whoa! Understand modern government through yesterdays lessons. Be careful with this one! You'll be making a serious mistake by reading this book before getting an overview of philosophy first. Take a college-level philosophy class before tackling this book. Huey Newton, co-founder of the Black Panthers, made the mistake of reading this book before he was completely literate and it ruined his life. You need to understand politics as a grand picture and not as one person explains it to you. You ne...more

The Republic of Plato

discuss this book

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 4357)