What do you think?
Rate this book
Books That Changed the World
Plato's Republic: A Biography
Plato is perhaps the most significant philosopher who has ever lived and The Republic, composed in Athens in about 375 BC, is widely regarded as his most famous dialogue. Its discussion of the perfect city and the perfect mind laid the foundations for Western culture and, for over two thousand years, has been the cornerstone of Western philosophy. As the distinguished Cambridge professor Simon Blackburn points out, it has probably sustained more commentary, and been subject to more radical and impassioned disagreement, than almost any other of the great founding texts of the modern world.
In Plato's Republic, Blackburn explains the judicial, moral and political ideas in the Republic with dazzling insight and clarity. Blackburn also examines Republic's remarkable influence and unquestioned staying power, and shows why, from St. Augustine to twentieth century philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Henri Bergson, Western thought is still conditioned by this most important, and contemporary, of books.
In Plato's Republic, Blackburn explains the judicial, moral and political ideas in the Republic with dazzling insight and clarity. Blackburn also examines Republic's remarkable influence and unquestioned staying power, and shows why, from St. Augustine to twentieth century philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Henri Bergson, Western thought is still conditioned by this most important, and contemporary, of books.
193 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2006
161 people are currently reading
2367 people want to read
About the author
Simon Blackburn
77 books279 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Simon Blackburn FBA is an English academic philosopher known for his work in metaethics, where he defends quasi-realism, and in the philosophy of language; more recently, he has gained a large general audience from his efforts to popularise philosophy.
He retired as the professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge in 2011, but remains a distinguished research professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, teaching every fall semester. He is also a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a member of the professoriate of New College of the Humanities. He was previously a Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford and has also taught full-time at the University of North Carolina as an Edna J. Koury Professor. He is a former president of the Aristotelian Society, having served the 2009–2010 term. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2002 and a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2008.
Simon Blackburn FBA is an English academic philosopher known for his work in metaethics, where he defends quasi-realism, and in the philosophy of language; more recently, he has gained a large general audience from his efforts to popularise philosophy.
He retired as the professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge in 2011, but remains a distinguished research professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, teaching every fall semester. He is also a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a member of the professoriate of New College of the Humanities. He was previously a Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford and has also taught full-time at the University of North Carolina as an Edna J. Koury Professor. He is a former president of the Aristotelian Society, having served the 2009–2010 term. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2002 and a Foreign Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews
November 16, 2010
I bumped into a friend at Readings in Carlton a week or so ago and she was holding this – there was a stack of them on their cheap table and my mate George had read it when it came out and had recommended it, so I picked it up to read on the tram ride home. At the time I was planning to do my final English assignment on something to do with Plato’s Cave and so it made sense to grab this. The book was okay, but not as good as I had hoped.
I have mixed feelings about Plato, particularly the Plato who wrote this particular little book that changed the world. He believes in castes and distrusts democracy. He doesn’t like artists (particularly poets) and would have them escorted away from the ideal society. He believes that rulers should lie to their subjects (their subjects being a bit daft and better off being treated like children) and he anticipated all of the ‘life rejecting’ (as Nietzsche would have it) aspects of Christianity by about 300 years.
On the other hand, he does cover a hell of a lot of ground in the Republic and some of the ideas here are remarkably powerful. The central idea is that knowledge and the good are the same thing. This is an idea that has a very strong appeal and despite the reticence this author has in accepting it (and I have to admit that I have as well) it is a bit like Keats’ – ‘“Beauty is truth, truth beauty“– that is all / Ye know on Earth and all Ye need to know’. – Even though we actually know this isn’t all we need to know, it is hard not to be attracted to a world in which this would be all we need to know.
It is a very long time since I read the Republic. In fact, it is probably 15-20 years. I have misremembered a lot of it. I had thought that the Allegory of the Cave was in the last book, when in fact it is closer to the middle. I mention this because I thought (and have told people) that I struggled all the way through the book when I read it and wanted to give up, but was rewarded by finally getting to read the Cave – when, in fact, this memory is completely wrong (despite how clear it has been). I’m always surprised when my memory plays tricks like this on me – it is a very uncomfortable feeling.
There is a lot of the Republic that makes no sense at all – all the strange calculations, for instance, about how much better a Philosopher King is when compared to a Dictator (that would be 729 times better, according to Plato) and his calculations on to how long the ideal society could be expected to last – I can’t remember how long this would be, but yonks. I remember while I was reading it thinking all this was terribly strange so I was glad to read this book telling me the author also found the calculations completely incomprehensible.
The points made about democracy are a bit disturbing. Plato and I would not agree on this at all, as I do think democracy is the best political system on offer and that what we need is more democracy, not less. However, I do see the point that democracy can mean appealing to the basest instincts of people. There is a disturbing quote on this point: “A world in which democratic leaders like to spend their energy on facelifts, cosmetics and suntans while simultaneously mourning for lost respect would have held no surprises for Plato.” Hmm - Silvio Berlusconi, anyone?
This book gives three interpretations of the Cave Allegory: a religious, poetic and scientific interpretation. These are interesting in themselves and show how Plato’s cave is a bit like a mirror, where people can look in and see pretty much themselves reflected back at them. To me the allegory has always been about education. The first line of book seven directs the reader’s attention to the idea of education, although in reading it again recently I was also surprised at how vague this reference was too. What I’ve always found striking is how alienating and painful Plato feels education can be. Plato makes this point repeatedly in his description of the journey both out of the cave and back into the cave. It is a journey of pain, alienation and finally death. That one must always return after education to the world one has left is also a remarkably potent idea that Plato makes very plain.
Why is this important? To me I think people tend to think education is always and in all circumstances a positive boon for those receiving an education. I think it is important to note that sometimes having the scales lifted from one’s eyes makes others see us quite differently too. When I was teaching adult literacy a number of years ago I read that many people who finally learnt to read found that they ended up no longer married. Their partners suddenly felt that they had no further role in the relationship. I have also heard of people who stopped attending classes so as to avoid just such an outcome. I have also been told that women starting a degree later in life tend to end up separated at some stage over the time it takes to gain their degree. Education changes lives, but sometimes we have no idea just what changes will be wrought.
If I had more time I would read all of Plato’s dialogues – and one day I am determined to – Socrates is a great hero of mine, even if he says some remarkably silly things at times. This was an interesting little book, although not really what I was expecting.
I have mixed feelings about Plato, particularly the Plato who wrote this particular little book that changed the world. He believes in castes and distrusts democracy. He doesn’t like artists (particularly poets) and would have them escorted away from the ideal society. He believes that rulers should lie to their subjects (their subjects being a bit daft and better off being treated like children) and he anticipated all of the ‘life rejecting’ (as Nietzsche would have it) aspects of Christianity by about 300 years.
On the other hand, he does cover a hell of a lot of ground in the Republic and some of the ideas here are remarkably powerful. The central idea is that knowledge and the good are the same thing. This is an idea that has a very strong appeal and despite the reticence this author has in accepting it (and I have to admit that I have as well) it is a bit like Keats’ – ‘“Beauty is truth, truth beauty“– that is all / Ye know on Earth and all Ye need to know’. – Even though we actually know this isn’t all we need to know, it is hard not to be attracted to a world in which this would be all we need to know.
It is a very long time since I read the Republic. In fact, it is probably 15-20 years. I have misremembered a lot of it. I had thought that the Allegory of the Cave was in the last book, when in fact it is closer to the middle. I mention this because I thought (and have told people) that I struggled all the way through the book when I read it and wanted to give up, but was rewarded by finally getting to read the Cave – when, in fact, this memory is completely wrong (despite how clear it has been). I’m always surprised when my memory plays tricks like this on me – it is a very uncomfortable feeling.
There is a lot of the Republic that makes no sense at all – all the strange calculations, for instance, about how much better a Philosopher King is when compared to a Dictator (that would be 729 times better, according to Plato) and his calculations on to how long the ideal society could be expected to last – I can’t remember how long this would be, but yonks. I remember while I was reading it thinking all this was terribly strange so I was glad to read this book telling me the author also found the calculations completely incomprehensible.
The points made about democracy are a bit disturbing. Plato and I would not agree on this at all, as I do think democracy is the best political system on offer and that what we need is more democracy, not less. However, I do see the point that democracy can mean appealing to the basest instincts of people. There is a disturbing quote on this point: “A world in which democratic leaders like to spend their energy on facelifts, cosmetics and suntans while simultaneously mourning for lost respect would have held no surprises for Plato.” Hmm - Silvio Berlusconi, anyone?
This book gives three interpretations of the Cave Allegory: a religious, poetic and scientific interpretation. These are interesting in themselves and show how Plato’s cave is a bit like a mirror, where people can look in and see pretty much themselves reflected back at them. To me the allegory has always been about education. The first line of book seven directs the reader’s attention to the idea of education, although in reading it again recently I was also surprised at how vague this reference was too. What I’ve always found striking is how alienating and painful Plato feels education can be. Plato makes this point repeatedly in his description of the journey both out of the cave and back into the cave. It is a journey of pain, alienation and finally death. That one must always return after education to the world one has left is also a remarkably potent idea that Plato makes very plain.
Why is this important? To me I think people tend to think education is always and in all circumstances a positive boon for those receiving an education. I think it is important to note that sometimes having the scales lifted from one’s eyes makes others see us quite differently too. When I was teaching adult literacy a number of years ago I read that many people who finally learnt to read found that they ended up no longer married. Their partners suddenly felt that they had no further role in the relationship. I have also heard of people who stopped attending classes so as to avoid just such an outcome. I have also been told that women starting a degree later in life tend to end up separated at some stage over the time it takes to gain their degree. Education changes lives, but sometimes we have no idea just what changes will be wrought.
If I had more time I would read all of Plato’s dialogues – and one day I am determined to – Socrates is a great hero of mine, even if he says some remarkably silly things at times. This was an interesting little book, although not really what I was expecting.
April 15, 2024
The author, by his own admission, is neither historian nor classicist. Even though it is not mentioned, through the pristine formulations, critical but not arrogant analysis, it becomes perfectly clear that the author is, in fact, a fellow philosopher. A true philosopher does not write a hagiography, not even one for Plato. True to form, the author does put the spot light on various troublesome propositions and conclusions of the grand master, and in clear argument makes the reader (re)consider Plato’s stance on art, paintings, even poetry, and more. On the other hand, the author does show the relevance of many of Plato’s The Republic positions on government, politics , education and society as a whole to current affairs. All in all, an analytic masterpiece by Simon Blackburn.
February 17, 2019
hmmmmm........
Having just read the Republic I read this hoping to gain a clearer, but deeper understanding of it. I rarely read secondary texts and went in with fairly high expectations, thinking that clarifying and expanding was kind of the point of secondary texts.
But this book seemed to be aimed at doing two other things: it seemed to want to point out how wrong Plato's conception of just about everything is; and secondly to offer a lighter alternative for people that didn't want to read the Republic itself. Not only do I think that these two approaches seem to be at odds with each other, but I urge anyone who is interested in the Republic to at least read the sun, divided line, and cave bits of the Republic: they are well written, short, really bloody famous and give a very good meditation on the nature of a priori truths and their relation to epistemology.
A lot of the time I felt that Blackburn was reluctant to get into the very philosophical parts of Plato, preferring a lot of the time to modernise the arguments, and then deal with these modern versions. I also felt at times that Blackburn was lazily dismissive of Plato, appealing to a supposedly enlightened common sense, to a degree that was at times Moorian. However, there is an over arching thesis to this book that I think is quite impressive, in which he points out the inconsistency of - again modern - Platonists. In one example he shows how at times Platonists will play down a lot of the dodgy political theories in Plato, by defending that they are only there to represent their ethical counter parts - but it could hardly be expected that we should read the Republic with no political message at all.
Overall I think Blackburn spends too much time pointing out obvious bad arguments in the Republic, and doesn't spend enough time playing with the much more tricky, but much more thought provoking, truths at the heart of it.
Incidentally the translator's introduction by Desmond Lee in the Penguin edition managed to achieve a great deal of what I was hoping Blackburn would, and also I think it gives a much more two sided, fair handling of the beardy old sage and his charming barmy book.
Having just read the Republic I read this hoping to gain a clearer, but deeper understanding of it. I rarely read secondary texts and went in with fairly high expectations, thinking that clarifying and expanding was kind of the point of secondary texts.
But this book seemed to be aimed at doing two other things: it seemed to want to point out how wrong Plato's conception of just about everything is; and secondly to offer a lighter alternative for people that didn't want to read the Republic itself. Not only do I think that these two approaches seem to be at odds with each other, but I urge anyone who is interested in the Republic to at least read the sun, divided line, and cave bits of the Republic: they are well written, short, really bloody famous and give a very good meditation on the nature of a priori truths and their relation to epistemology.
A lot of the time I felt that Blackburn was reluctant to get into the very philosophical parts of Plato, preferring a lot of the time to modernise the arguments, and then deal with these modern versions. I also felt at times that Blackburn was lazily dismissive of Plato, appealing to a supposedly enlightened common sense, to a degree that was at times Moorian. However, there is an over arching thesis to this book that I think is quite impressive, in which he points out the inconsistency of - again modern - Platonists. In one example he shows how at times Platonists will play down a lot of the dodgy political theories in Plato, by defending that they are only there to represent their ethical counter parts - but it could hardly be expected that we should read the Republic with no political message at all.
Overall I think Blackburn spends too much time pointing out obvious bad arguments in the Republic, and doesn't spend enough time playing with the much more tricky, but much more thought provoking, truths at the heart of it.
Incidentally the translator's introduction by Desmond Lee in the Penguin edition managed to achieve a great deal of what I was hoping Blackburn would, and also I think it gives a much more two sided, fair handling of the beardy old sage and his charming barmy book.
June 17, 2011
Blackburn is up front about his distaste for The Republic, so the editors of this series are the ones to blame for asking him to write it. It isn't so much a "biography" as a collection of critical opinions, all of which are justified to some extent but leave the reader wondering what the point of such a collection can be. There are some interesting historical tidbits scattered throughout the book, but overall not much enlightenment. On the positive side, Blackburn is an amusing writer and doesn't take himself too seriously.
September 12, 2012
While I have read and discussed many of the dialogues of Plato, some of them multiple times, I continue to explore differing presentations and critiques of his ideas. Simon Blackburn's short study of Plato's Republic is an excellent place to review one of Plato's most famous dialogues and learn from him. He presents The Republic in a topical manner with sixteen chapters that range from a discussion of custom and convention to a brief essay on "The Farewell Myth". The latter, the Myth of Er from Book X, was a text used prominently in a memorial service for one of my teachers at the University of Chicago more than two decades ago. Its power is demonstrated in the vivid memory of not only my own reading but the memory of that memorial.
With emphasis on both the best known passages like "The Ring of Gyges" and the "Myth of the Cave", but also less well-known sections of the ten books that comprise The Republic, Simon Blackburn makes a thorough overview in this small, 161 page, book. With the addition of valuable suggestions for further reading this is both a good starting point for those unfamiliar with Plato or an excellent review for old hands in the reading and study of this founding father of Philosophy.
With emphasis on both the best known passages like "The Ring of Gyges" and the "Myth of the Cave", but also less well-known sections of the ten books that comprise The Republic, Simon Blackburn makes a thorough overview in this small, 161 page, book. With the addition of valuable suggestions for further reading this is both a good starting point for those unfamiliar with Plato or an excellent review for old hands in the reading and study of this founding father of Philosophy.
August 12, 2019
Plato is one of the dominant forces, if not THE dominant force in the history of Western philosophy. It has been said (with a load of exaggeration but also a grain of truth) that Western philosophy consists of nothing but footnotes to Plato. I love Greek history and am an admirer of Greek thought and Greek literature, and because of this I really want to like and admire Plato. But I don’t. His metaphysics seem silly to me, and his politics are monstrous. In The Republic he advocates a repressive totalitarian state explicitly founded on lies and maintained by eugenics. It’s monstrous. Over the centuries Plato’s apologists have attempted to make excuses for it, and they have filtered it through their own ideas to make it more palatable, but the Republic is rotten at its core. I read this Essay in the hope of gaining a new understanding of Plato’s masterpiece, but it didn’t happen. Simon Blackburn explains that he is himself not a fan of Plato, and while he gives him a fair shake in his discussion of the Republic, he doesn’t sugarcoat it’s more unappealing ideas. This was a well written, thoughtful, and interesting exploration of the Republic and its impact on Western thought.
April 25, 2013
Quick summary: Very approachable text explaining why we still read a book from 2,500 years ago.
Blackburn's book is meant to explain the importance of "Republic" to philosophy and is not meant to explain the arguments of "Republic" itself. Many, many thinkers have produced scholarship in response to "Republic" and Blackburn traces some of the most interesting supporters and detractors throughout history. His approach pointed me in the direction of several scholars I might never have found otherwise, but one of the purposes of Blackburn's biography is to explain why there is still so much effort put into studying Plato.
Blackburn being a philosopher himself, he does spend some time pointing out serious issues with Plato's vision of the perfect city and the perfect mind. As Blackburn points out, it is not that Plato got everything magically right so long ago, but it is how we argue today about what he got right or wrong that matters.
Blackburn's book is meant to explain the importance of "Republic" to philosophy and is not meant to explain the arguments of "Republic" itself. Many, many thinkers have produced scholarship in response to "Republic" and Blackburn traces some of the most interesting supporters and detractors throughout history. His approach pointed me in the direction of several scholars I might never have found otherwise, but one of the purposes of Blackburn's biography is to explain why there is still so much effort put into studying Plato.
Blackburn being a philosopher himself, he does spend some time pointing out serious issues with Plato's vision of the perfect city and the perfect mind. As Blackburn points out, it is not that Plato got everything magically right so long ago, but it is how we argue today about what he got right or wrong that matters.
June 19, 2017
The Republic is an fascinating and enigmatic book--in many ways, it influence of "Western" philosophy is almost strange given its esoteric calculations, anti-democratic sentiment, obvious theological assumptions, and a mathematical logic that is purely geometric being applied to political and social ideas. Blackburn goes through the various arguments around the book both represented within the dialogues themselves as in the later reception of parts of the Republic in European and North American culture. Blackburn gives three solid interpretations of the allegory of the cave, talks about some the flaws in Socrates' dialectic reasoning, and some interesting interpretations of Plato's moral framework.
Blackburn is not overly academic and shows his biases; however, for a deep insight into either the Republic or its reception history, I think you have to dig deeper than Blackburn does. An enjoyable book that serves its function, but only as a taste.
Blackburn is not overly academic and shows his biases; however, for a deep insight into either the Republic or its reception history, I think you have to dig deeper than Blackburn does. An enjoyable book that serves its function, but only as a taste.
July 13, 2022
(Jim Cook’s review). First, let me say I enjoy the “books that changed the world “ series from Atlantic, of which Blackburn’s Republic is one. The best of these is the one by Francis Whehan on Marx’s Capital.
Although Blackburn is not a terribly sympathetic reviewer his account is reasonably balanced and informative. You could do worse than read his review as a first-time reader of the Republic.
Of course, you must read the Republic itself, otherwise you are really missing out.
Two small “editorial” criticisms: at one point Blackburn refers to the “three volume classic” - Popper’s The open society and its Enemies. Even a wanna-be scholar like me knows that Popper’s work was published in two volumes (or, in later years, as one) but never as 3! Also, in one of Blackburn’s chapters he has a lengthy quote from Hegel, which he labels as endnote #3. But there’s only two endnotes in the book for this chapter!
Overall, it’s worth your time to read it.
Although Blackburn is not a terribly sympathetic reviewer his account is reasonably balanced and informative. You could do worse than read his review as a first-time reader of the Republic.
Of course, you must read the Republic itself, otherwise you are really missing out.
Two small “editorial” criticisms: at one point Blackburn refers to the “three volume classic” - Popper’s The open society and its Enemies. Even a wanna-be scholar like me knows that Popper’s work was published in two volumes (or, in later years, as one) but never as 3! Also, in one of Blackburn’s chapters he has a lengthy quote from Hegel, which he labels as endnote #3. But there’s only two endnotes in the book for this chapter!
Overall, it’s worth your time to read it.
August 15, 2022
The subtitle and blurb suggest a reception history. But it’s more like a presentist argument with Plato.
January 24, 2026
You may as well just read the Republic. you'd actually know what its about, opposed to this very dry and beat around the bush love to go off topic synopsis. Also the author makes it clear he doesn't really like or agree with Plato, words to that effect. It shows in his writing unfortunately, id prefer an unbiased approach
Read
September 2, 2025The advantages of being multilingual are always discussed, and I was aware of them as well. But the way it manifested its power in the Republic was mind-blowing.
The book starts by arguing whether or not justice is good (vs. injustice) even under circumstances in which one can be unjust and disguised as just, seemingly living with many advantages without being caught up.
And then Socrates takes a step back and defines justice, first in a state and then in the individual. The word "justice" is "عدل" in Arabic, and being just is all about keeping balance "تعادل" in whatever one does. So balance and justice have the same roots in the Arabic "عدل". In this overly materialist world where everyone is so obsessed with accumulating wealth and sees the one who doesn't do it or is unable to do it as weak or an idiot, humanity seriously needs Socrates' definition to comprehend the value of justice with the reason in their mind and soul.
Socrates gives the example of a doctor or artist and proves that in each case they might do more harm than good if they do more than what they're supposed to do.
And that either medicine or art/craft always considers the benefit of their subject; otherwise, they are useless.
He then describes a just society where every individual is specialized in their own area of work and lives in harmony with each other, exchanhing the benefits of their work and making a living. But if one intrudes and tries to do others' jobs, he won't do them well. Then it comes to the nature of protectors of the society and that they should have the highest qualities to be able to defend themselves and others. And with that comes that definition of a just individual, who is one that has a balance in knowing music, has enough passion, has enough bodyily strength, and has enough wisdom. And if anyone grows more in one of these areas, they tend to have either too soft a soul which is incapable of fighting, or too much passion making them incapable of thinking strategically. If they are too strong, the wisdom and emotion will be secondary, and if they are too wise, they won't have enough passion and courage to do things. Thefefore, justice is that each of these plays their role under the rule of reason for a human being and society to be happy. He argues that strong men and women should procreate with each other only to create the strong next generations, and wives and children should be common among them (well, this part is not so digestible for me).
Then he expands on what kind of arts and sciences should be taught to these guardians and argues that mathematics and geometry, and above all dialectics are best, becaue they help with reason and that astronomy is not so good because it only deals with appearances of shapes and not their essence and doesn't prove the absolute good, and dialetics is the only method to grasp forms directly above mathematics.
There is a good deal on the allegory of the cave and how a just person can believe in the goodness of justice so deep in his heart and mind that his view can't be altered under any circumstances. And that opens up that idea of "good". And that there is only one and absolute good. The allegory is so beautiful, it compares people with a lack of knowledge of true good to the ones in the cave which only see the shadows of the objects on the wall, and light is the instrument that helps them with that comprehension. He mentions that if someone ascends from that cave and is exposed to the sun (like absolute good, from which beauty, truth, and wisdom derive from it), he will see the absolute good, and when going back to the cave, will not exchange anything unreal with that absolute good. And will inform others about the situation, although his job might be very difficult dealing with people who don't have a conception of reality.
He emphasized that the rulers should control the education, not allowing useless music to be created and not allowing poetry even the one like Homer's, to be so widespread and unruled that it alters people's understanding of absolute good and reality. That poetry is only the viewpoint of the poet and only an imitation of the truth. He compares this with three levels: the work of the creator as absolute reality, the work of the craftsman as an example of that reality and the work of the artist as only an imitation of the example, which is 3rd in a row and not close to reality.
That poetry, if unruled, can allow people to think if those excessive behaviors like lamentations or ridiculing are normal, and they can let themselves do so in similar conditions. That the way poetry talks about Gods is so improper, because they fall for their lust or take sides, etc., which is contradictory to the idea of God.
I love the theist view of Socrates, and that eases my heart to a great extent, because philosphy admits that there is a need for an absolute good, and that can be named God. He argues the situation of women and says that if they're expected to do the jobs carried out by men, they need to be equally trained and treated. Then he goes on by justifying why philosophers make the best of rulers, and the counter-argument that arises is that in reality they are nothing but useless people. Then Socrates brings up the allegory of the ship where there are many who are strong that can claim to do the sailing, but if they don't have the knowledge of sailing, they won't be able to guide the ship. He admits that there might be chances that some philosophers become corrupt if they don't have true love for knowledge and good. And that philosophers are the only ones who know the form of Good. Without that, rulers are blind and unsuitable to be just.
Then he starts to compare different types of society, which are aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy ane tyranny. And although aristocracy by a philosopher and just king is the best option, human nature is imperfect, and the control of birth timing of successors is hard; that's why with excess love for honor, it turns into timocraycy, and with love for excess wealth, to oligrachy, with love for excess freedom and equalizing all desires (which is very dangerous), to democracy; and with tiredness of excess freedom and things getting loose and unruly leads to tyranny which is the worst. So in essence, what drives human beings into the abyss of desperation is love for some kind of excess. And Socrates proves that only love for wisdom is good and then compares human nature to a monster that is part divine and part beast and says that both love of honor and love of wealth feed the beast and suppress the divine nature of the soul.
He proves that the soul is unperishable because even if it has some evil in it, it will last forever and keep suffering. And at the end, it tells the story of the man who travels to the other world and witnesses how just people ascend and are rewarded 10 times and how unjust people descend inside the earth and suffer 10 times as well. And gives an example of a tyrant that someone asks for how long he is going to stay in hell and hears that he can perhaps never ascend, unlike people that, after their punishment period is over, can ascend.
And the book ends with emphasizing that if philosophy is engrained in the soul, it will make better choices of lives when options are given to him/her before their next lives.
Well, a few things that will remain forever justified in my soul and I am now very certain about with my heart and mind: 1-A happy life is a just life 2-Justice is good for the doer and subject. 3- Love for excess definitely feels like a beast that is never satiated. 4-When raising a generation, how important it is to keep balance between different traits of the body and soul and finally, forever, maybe every single day ask myself this question: Is this act, just, i.e., balanced? If yes, it automatically serves for good for others as well, and that is the true definition of a utopia.
Hopefully more humans will get the chance to read this book, and the world will reverse some of its miseries.
The book starts by arguing whether or not justice is good (vs. injustice) even under circumstances in which one can be unjust and disguised as just, seemingly living with many advantages without being caught up.
And then Socrates takes a step back and defines justice, first in a state and then in the individual. The word "justice" is "عدل" in Arabic, and being just is all about keeping balance "تعادل" in whatever one does. So balance and justice have the same roots in the Arabic "عدل". In this overly materialist world where everyone is so obsessed with accumulating wealth and sees the one who doesn't do it or is unable to do it as weak or an idiot, humanity seriously needs Socrates' definition to comprehend the value of justice with the reason in their mind and soul.
Socrates gives the example of a doctor or artist and proves that in each case they might do more harm than good if they do more than what they're supposed to do.
And that either medicine or art/craft always considers the benefit of their subject; otherwise, they are useless.
He then describes a just society where every individual is specialized in their own area of work and lives in harmony with each other, exchanhing the benefits of their work and making a living. But if one intrudes and tries to do others' jobs, he won't do them well. Then it comes to the nature of protectors of the society and that they should have the highest qualities to be able to defend themselves and others. And with that comes that definition of a just individual, who is one that has a balance in knowing music, has enough passion, has enough bodyily strength, and has enough wisdom. And if anyone grows more in one of these areas, they tend to have either too soft a soul which is incapable of fighting, or too much passion making them incapable of thinking strategically. If they are too strong, the wisdom and emotion will be secondary, and if they are too wise, they won't have enough passion and courage to do things. Thefefore, justice is that each of these plays their role under the rule of reason for a human being and society to be happy. He argues that strong men and women should procreate with each other only to create the strong next generations, and wives and children should be common among them (well, this part is not so digestible for me).
Then he expands on what kind of arts and sciences should be taught to these guardians and argues that mathematics and geometry, and above all dialectics are best, becaue they help with reason and that astronomy is not so good because it only deals with appearances of shapes and not their essence and doesn't prove the absolute good, and dialetics is the only method to grasp forms directly above mathematics.
There is a good deal on the allegory of the cave and how a just person can believe in the goodness of justice so deep in his heart and mind that his view can't be altered under any circumstances. And that opens up that idea of "good". And that there is only one and absolute good. The allegory is so beautiful, it compares people with a lack of knowledge of true good to the ones in the cave which only see the shadows of the objects on the wall, and light is the instrument that helps them with that comprehension. He mentions that if someone ascends from that cave and is exposed to the sun (like absolute good, from which beauty, truth, and wisdom derive from it), he will see the absolute good, and when going back to the cave, will not exchange anything unreal with that absolute good. And will inform others about the situation, although his job might be very difficult dealing with people who don't have a conception of reality.
He emphasized that the rulers should control the education, not allowing useless music to be created and not allowing poetry even the one like Homer's, to be so widespread and unruled that it alters people's understanding of absolute good and reality. That poetry is only the viewpoint of the poet and only an imitation of the truth. He compares this with three levels: the work of the creator as absolute reality, the work of the craftsman as an example of that reality and the work of the artist as only an imitation of the example, which is 3rd in a row and not close to reality.
That poetry, if unruled, can allow people to think if those excessive behaviors like lamentations or ridiculing are normal, and they can let themselves do so in similar conditions. That the way poetry talks about Gods is so improper, because they fall for their lust or take sides, etc., which is contradictory to the idea of God.
I love the theist view of Socrates, and that eases my heart to a great extent, because philosphy admits that there is a need for an absolute good, and that can be named God. He argues the situation of women and says that if they're expected to do the jobs carried out by men, they need to be equally trained and treated. Then he goes on by justifying why philosophers make the best of rulers, and the counter-argument that arises is that in reality they are nothing but useless people. Then Socrates brings up the allegory of the ship where there are many who are strong that can claim to do the sailing, but if they don't have the knowledge of sailing, they won't be able to guide the ship. He admits that there might be chances that some philosophers become corrupt if they don't have true love for knowledge and good. And that philosophers are the only ones who know the form of Good. Without that, rulers are blind and unsuitable to be just.
Then he starts to compare different types of society, which are aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy ane tyranny. And although aristocracy by a philosopher and just king is the best option, human nature is imperfect, and the control of birth timing of successors is hard; that's why with excess love for honor, it turns into timocraycy, and with love for excess wealth, to oligrachy, with love for excess freedom and equalizing all desires (which is very dangerous), to democracy; and with tiredness of excess freedom and things getting loose and unruly leads to tyranny which is the worst. So in essence, what drives human beings into the abyss of desperation is love for some kind of excess. And Socrates proves that only love for wisdom is good and then compares human nature to a monster that is part divine and part beast and says that both love of honor and love of wealth feed the beast and suppress the divine nature of the soul.
He proves that the soul is unperishable because even if it has some evil in it, it will last forever and keep suffering. And at the end, it tells the story of the man who travels to the other world and witnesses how just people ascend and are rewarded 10 times and how unjust people descend inside the earth and suffer 10 times as well. And gives an example of a tyrant that someone asks for how long he is going to stay in hell and hears that he can perhaps never ascend, unlike people that, after their punishment period is over, can ascend.
And the book ends with emphasizing that if philosophy is engrained in the soul, it will make better choices of lives when options are given to him/her before their next lives.
Well, a few things that will remain forever justified in my soul and I am now very certain about with my heart and mind: 1-A happy life is a just life 2-Justice is good for the doer and subject. 3- Love for excess definitely feels like a beast that is never satiated. 4-When raising a generation, how important it is to keep balance between different traits of the body and soul and finally, forever, maybe every single day ask myself this question: Is this act, just, i.e., balanced? If yes, it automatically serves for good for others as well, and that is the true definition of a utopia.
Hopefully more humans will get the chance to read this book, and the world will reverse some of its miseries.
Read
May 18, 2020Blackburn is a very readable philosopher - not a common thing. This book is very enjoyable and Blackburn does a great job of picking out the main points of interest in Plato's masterpiece and discussing them in an intelligent and easy style. However, it seems fair to say, he isn't particularly sympathetic to Plato, and this occasionally leads him into uncharitable readings, I think (e.g. the accusation that Plato denied the possibility of social mobility in his ideal society). Also, the book is less historically informative than other books in this series (e.g. Janet Browne's excellent book on Darwin's Origin of Species). However, it is still highly recommended.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
March 5, 2017
One of the most readable and accessible introductions to Plato I have read in a long time.Whilst Blackburn is a Plato critic I think that he is a fair one and he is open about his stance from the beginning of the book. Hs use of modern day examples makes Plato come alive and seem particularly relevant to today. I have found in the past that commentaries on Plato make you feel relieved that you do not have to read the original, in this case I feel inspired to return to the original texts.
I have recommended this to some of my A Level students, particularly the chapters one the cave and belief and knowledge which are particularly easy to read.
I have recommended this to some of my A Level students, particularly the chapters one the cave and belief and knowledge which are particularly easy to read.
March 7, 2011
I found this work on Plato's most reknown dialogue a very good analysis of The Republic. Simon Blackburn, a Professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge, walked me through the 10 chapters, moving boldly, pointing out aspects of essence and succeeding to keep my interest fully alive. I am not terribly fond of intricate philosophy myself, so - aside from his analysis/insights - I appreciated his style (direct) and clarity.
August 27, 2010
Meh. I have no idea why the Atlantic Monthly Press would publish this. He starts out by saying he wasn't really enthusiastic about the project, then over the next 150 pages he does nothing to convince me otherwise. I picked this up because the title followed Jack Miles' excellent God: A Biography, but aside from a few pages in Chapter 11, this didn't really deliver.
October 5, 2010
Audio!
So... I couldn't get through this. I don't know if it's because it wasn't actually The Republic, but a guy talking about Plato's Republic, or because it was just not a good driving book. Snooze-alert.
It's probably well-written- there are some good turns of phrase ("what is religion but fossilized philosophy?") and the makings of good analysis, but just not for me.
So... I couldn't get through this. I don't know if it's because it wasn't actually The Republic, but a guy talking about Plato's Republic, or because it was just not a good driving book. Snooze-alert.
It's probably well-written- there are some good turns of phrase ("what is religion but fossilized philosophy?") and the makings of good analysis, but just not for me.
December 31, 2015
miserable
February 4, 2026
Just what I needed to shake the dust off my memory without having to wade through The Republic again. It is an engaging intro, and I loved how Blackburn prods Plato’s arguments instead of presenting them as canonical text, though I can imagine some readers being caught off guard by that. It might feel like signing up for a tour of St Peter’s Basilica expecting reverence, then getting a guide who keeps reminding you it was partly built by guilting ordinary people into paying for the ‘salvation’ of their dead. (Not that Plato did anything comparably evil. Blackburn is concerned with arguments and assumptions).
Well, I’m the sort of person who loves that kind of surprise. More to the point, The Republic presents its ideas with far less resistance from its interlocutors than Plato’s earlier dialogues do. After the opening pressure, Glaucon and Adeimantus remain conveniently quiet while Socrates lectures on how his ideal city mirrors the well-ordered soul. That can become tedious. I prefer the more modest Socrates of earlier dialogues: guiding his companions into articulating their own thoughts, only to then unsettle their assumptions, and ultimately ending the conversation with a shrug, unable to bridge the conceptual gulf he just exposed. I see a bit of that same spirit in Blackburn’s hole-poking. He’s occasionally hand-wavy in his dismissals (though, to be fair, some parts of The Republic don’t call for much more than that), but the prodding usually lands. It clarifies what Plato needs you to grant for the whole thing to go through, for instance when he points to Plato’s peculiar views on human psychology and rationality.
I also appreciated how often Blackburn returns to the question that drives the whole argument of The Republic: is justice merely a negotiated truce between those with comparable power, something we follow only when we have to, and may abandon whenever we can get away with it? Or does being just have intrinsic value, such that abandoning it harms us even when we profit from injustice? Blackburn keeps asking how Plato’s utopia connects back to that issue, and I’m grateful for it, even if he leaves the epistemology and metaphysics in the back seat. It’s easy to lose the thread once you start wondering how studying mathematics and contemplating pure ideas is supposed to turn into philosopher-kings making concrete policies (I don’t remember that coming up during calculus class!). And then you have Plato swerving into a long tangent about expelling poets from the city, like an old man grumbling about how the current state of popular culture is leading us to civilisational collapse.
Like Blackburn, I’m far from convinced by Plato’s answer, but that question is what keeps bringing me back to The Republic. I find it as disquieting now as I did years ago when I first read the dialogue. It feels especially relevant these days, given how transparent it has become that great powers treat international law as a tool to defend their interests and ignore it when victims have no leverage. Even if I think The Republic ultimately fails to give a satisfactory answer, it’s still a book full of material worth wrestling with. Blackburn’s introduction does a great job of keeping the questions alive, sharpening what’s at stake, pointing out some silly bits, and making the dialogue feel less like a monument to admire than something you can actually think with.
Well, I’m the sort of person who loves that kind of surprise. More to the point, The Republic presents its ideas with far less resistance from its interlocutors than Plato’s earlier dialogues do. After the opening pressure, Glaucon and Adeimantus remain conveniently quiet while Socrates lectures on how his ideal city mirrors the well-ordered soul. That can become tedious. I prefer the more modest Socrates of earlier dialogues: guiding his companions into articulating their own thoughts, only to then unsettle their assumptions, and ultimately ending the conversation with a shrug, unable to bridge the conceptual gulf he just exposed. I see a bit of that same spirit in Blackburn’s hole-poking. He’s occasionally hand-wavy in his dismissals (though, to be fair, some parts of The Republic don’t call for much more than that), but the prodding usually lands. It clarifies what Plato needs you to grant for the whole thing to go through, for instance when he points to Plato’s peculiar views on human psychology and rationality.
I also appreciated how often Blackburn returns to the question that drives the whole argument of The Republic: is justice merely a negotiated truce between those with comparable power, something we follow only when we have to, and may abandon whenever we can get away with it? Or does being just have intrinsic value, such that abandoning it harms us even when we profit from injustice? Blackburn keeps asking how Plato’s utopia connects back to that issue, and I’m grateful for it, even if he leaves the epistemology and metaphysics in the back seat. It’s easy to lose the thread once you start wondering how studying mathematics and contemplating pure ideas is supposed to turn into philosopher-kings making concrete policies (I don’t remember that coming up during calculus class!). And then you have Plato swerving into a long tangent about expelling poets from the city, like an old man grumbling about how the current state of popular culture is leading us to civilisational collapse.
Like Blackburn, I’m far from convinced by Plato’s answer, but that question is what keeps bringing me back to The Republic. I find it as disquieting now as I did years ago when I first read the dialogue. It feels especially relevant these days, given how transparent it has become that great powers treat international law as a tool to defend their interests and ignore it when victims have no leverage. Even if I think The Republic ultimately fails to give a satisfactory answer, it’s still a book full of material worth wrestling with. Blackburn’s introduction does a great job of keeping the questions alive, sharpening what’s at stake, pointing out some silly bits, and making the dialogue feel less like a monument to admire than something you can actually think with.
December 21, 2016
I enjoyed Simon Blackburn's approach here, which was primarily a critical review of Republic as a work of philosophy and secondarily a historical review of the uses to which Plato's most notorious monument has been put. Notably, Blackburn regards himself in the front matter as an inauspicious choice to write the title, as he is not a specialist in Plato nor in history. He is, however, a working philosopher of some accomplishment, and while some of Plato's prescriptions get a bit esoteric, the questions he explores do not, and occupy philosophers to this day. Consequently Blackburn is well-trained and equipped to grapple with them.
It's been over 20 years since I've wrestled with Plato*, with what seemed like most of a semester dedicated to the Republic in particular, and I found Blackburn's book far easier to chew than its subject. Much of this fact arises no doubt from his unabashed friendliness to science and (vaguely) Left politics. But it is also the case that humans have made some progress over the past 2000 years in pondering the issues that Plato worked so hard to dispose of.
As an idealist, most importantly in the metaphysical and epistemological senses, Plato joins his fellows in being reluctant to admit that any work remains after him to be done. Despite his confidence in the immortality of the soul and the ability of that soul to see things as they truly are in the world of Forms when it rejoins that empyreal realm, Plato seemed to be in an awful hurry to suggest himself a prototypical philosopher-king, one sufficiently virtuous to have no need of the elaborate social scaffolding he otherwise regarded as mandatory to product such people.
Ultimately, and with humility, Blackburn lets Plato off the hook, perhaps because he sees the value of philosophy, like science as resting in its method and process rather than in its findings.
Unlike, perhaps, the poor, we will always have Polemarchus and Cephalon alongside us on our perpetual slog to the City, and we will always be beset by Thrasymachus, who interrupts our journey to ask, while smacking gum or fiddling with a switch blade, why he shouldn't just kill us here an now.
Blackburn's interpretation of Plato's project is one of patient tolerance for the unreflective, and eternal hostility to the aggressor, and be it part shadow and part substance, he in the end finds Plato's doggedness worthy of emulation, even if the grumpy old man's improvisatory skills were, ultimately, lacking.
* "What you do in your own time, Padre, is written on the wall in the vestry."
It's been over 20 years since I've wrestled with Plato*, with what seemed like most of a semester dedicated to the Republic in particular, and I found Blackburn's book far easier to chew than its subject. Much of this fact arises no doubt from his unabashed friendliness to science and (vaguely) Left politics. But it is also the case that humans have made some progress over the past 2000 years in pondering the issues that Plato worked so hard to dispose of.
As an idealist, most importantly in the metaphysical and epistemological senses, Plato joins his fellows in being reluctant to admit that any work remains after him to be done. Despite his confidence in the immortality of the soul and the ability of that soul to see things as they truly are in the world of Forms when it rejoins that empyreal realm, Plato seemed to be in an awful hurry to suggest himself a prototypical philosopher-king, one sufficiently virtuous to have no need of the elaborate social scaffolding he otherwise regarded as mandatory to product such people.
Ultimately, and with humility, Blackburn lets Plato off the hook, perhaps because he sees the value of philosophy, like science as resting in its method and process rather than in its findings.
Unlike, perhaps, the poor, we will always have Polemarchus and Cephalon alongside us on our perpetual slog to the City, and we will always be beset by Thrasymachus, who interrupts our journey to ask, while smacking gum or fiddling with a switch blade, why he shouldn't just kill us here an now.
Blackburn's interpretation of Plato's project is one of patient tolerance for the unreflective, and eternal hostility to the aggressor, and be it part shadow and part substance, he in the end finds Plato's doggedness worthy of emulation, even if the grumpy old man's improvisatory skills were, ultimately, lacking.
* "What you do in your own time, Padre, is written on the wall in the vestry."
January 6, 2021
Can one call an analysis of Plato’s Republic light reading which requires that it be read slowly. This book could conceivably be said to be that book. It is short and to the point and written to discern positive aspects of the Republic after coming to the text not inclined towards Plato.
Blackburn brings erudition and a lively mind to the task. I have had a similar approach and feelings towards Plato and perhaps like Blackburn I feel somewhat more favorably inclined.
Blackburn reviews the well known section oF the myth of the cave from different perspectives. He also discusses the concept that Plato wrote what was the first “utopia” preceding many others, none of which were as exciting as the dystopias. In that fashion perhaps we could view the unreality of the cave and the inability to see what what real as a precursor the film “The Matrix”. (File that under stray thoughts.)
My favorite lines, which seem to relate to the last few years of our politics (although the Republic was written over 1300 years ago and this book in 2006) is the following about the ‘challenge of Glaucon’:
“Put side by side a moral person and an immoral one. The strip tomorrow person of his aura, and give him a reputation for immorality, sufficient to subject him to all the punishments the law inflict, and eventual death. And imagine the immoral person clever enough to enjoy all the rewards that the appearance of morality gives, but with with the added benefit of being able to profit from his immorality whenever he can get away with it.”
Blackburn brings erudition and a lively mind to the task. I have had a similar approach and feelings towards Plato and perhaps like Blackburn I feel somewhat more favorably inclined.
Blackburn reviews the well known section oF the myth of the cave from different perspectives. He also discusses the concept that Plato wrote what was the first “utopia” preceding many others, none of which were as exciting as the dystopias. In that fashion perhaps we could view the unreality of the cave and the inability to see what what real as a precursor the film “The Matrix”. (File that under stray thoughts.)
My favorite lines, which seem to relate to the last few years of our politics (although the Republic was written over 1300 years ago and this book in 2006) is the following about the ‘challenge of Glaucon’:
“Put side by side a moral person and an immoral one. The strip tomorrow person of his aura, and give him a reputation for immorality, sufficient to subject him to all the punishments the law inflict, and eventual death. And imagine the immoral person clever enough to enjoy all the rewards that the appearance of morality gives, but with with the added benefit of being able to profit from his immorality whenever he can get away with it.”
July 24, 2025
The call is coming from the cave...
Reading The Republic feels like arguing with someone you admire and deeply disagree with: someone brilliant, stubborn, occasionally infuriating, and dangerous if given real power. Plato sets out to define justice and ends up designing a city where no one owns anything, artists are banished, and philosopher-kings lie to the people for their own good. It’s equal parts political manifesto, metaphysical thought experiment, and a dramatic fanfiction starring his teacher Socrates.
There are moments of genuine philosophical beauty, especially the Allegory of the Cave, which remains one of the most haunting images in Western thought. Plato’s insistence that true education is painful, disorienting, and transformative still resonates in this time and world, where learning is often treated as a transactional process. Emerging from the cave, he reminds us, is not the end. You have to go back in. And yet… the politics. The eugenics. The rigid social castes. The idea that poets must be escorted out of the ideal state. Throughout the read, Plato’s so-called “utopia” often felt like a blueprint for benevolent authoritarianism, with just enough “noble lie” to keep the whole thing running.
Still, there’s something captivating in its ambition. The Republic is less a finished product than a provocation: a work that invites rereading, not because it’s easy or agreeable, but because it refuses to be ignored. In other words: philosophy at its most alive.
Reading The Republic feels like arguing with someone you admire and deeply disagree with: someone brilliant, stubborn, occasionally infuriating, and dangerous if given real power. Plato sets out to define justice and ends up designing a city where no one owns anything, artists are banished, and philosopher-kings lie to the people for their own good. It’s equal parts political manifesto, metaphysical thought experiment, and a dramatic fanfiction starring his teacher Socrates.
There are moments of genuine philosophical beauty, especially the Allegory of the Cave, which remains one of the most haunting images in Western thought. Plato’s insistence that true education is painful, disorienting, and transformative still resonates in this time and world, where learning is often treated as a transactional process. Emerging from the cave, he reminds us, is not the end. You have to go back in. And yet… the politics. The eugenics. The rigid social castes. The idea that poets must be escorted out of the ideal state. Throughout the read, Plato’s so-called “utopia” often felt like a blueprint for benevolent authoritarianism, with just enough “noble lie” to keep the whole thing running.
Still, there’s something captivating in its ambition. The Republic is less a finished product than a provocation: a work that invites rereading, not because it’s easy or agreeable, but because it refuses to be ignored. In other words: philosophy at its most alive.
August 22, 2019
This books stinks, but I only partly blame the author. The publisher, Atlantic Monthly Press, is the real culprit here. The people who work there could have gone to any number of competent Plato scholars and asked one of them to write the book. Instead, they chose someone who clearly despises Plato (and who states as much in the book). Why on earth would you ask someone who doesn't like Plato to write a book on the importance of THE REPUBLIC? That's like asking a Nazi to write a history of the Jews.
Thus, the book that results isn't a fair analysis of THE REPUBLIC. And that's another thing, the book touts itself as a biography of THE REPUBLIC, not an analysis. Which means the expectation is that the book is going to be a look at the book's life throughout the ages, how it was interpreted during such and such an age and by such and such a people. But there's very little of that - yes, there's some, but not much.
What's the phrase the kids use? Epic fail? Yes, that's what this book is, an epic fail.
Thus, the book that results isn't a fair analysis of THE REPUBLIC. And that's another thing, the book touts itself as a biography of THE REPUBLIC, not an analysis. Which means the expectation is that the book is going to be a look at the book's life throughout the ages, how it was interpreted during such and such an age and by such and such a people. But there's very little of that - yes, there's some, but not much.
What's the phrase the kids use? Epic fail? Yes, that's what this book is, an epic fail.
December 10, 2023
Bueno, not my cup of tea.
Creo que la filosofía de este tipo es totalmente innacesible, yo, que se supone que algo me interesaba, acabe tardando en leerlo un montón y se me hizo muy cuesta arriba, lo dejé muchas veces.
Entiendo que no es mi género predilecto, no niego que no esté brillantemente escrito y que no proponga una retahíla de ideas, reflexiones y argumentos interesantes. Pero como no veo aplicabilidad en muchas cosas en mi entorno inmediato siento que gran parte es conocimiento puro y duro, para alguien que le apetezca estudiar sobre política. Si busco un libro para entender la trascendencia del pensamiento platónico en nuestra sociedad consultaría algo más fácil de leer. Aún así ha sido curioso y divertido a veces.
Hay temas, como el alma filosófica, la división del mundo visible y el mundo inteligible y por tanto el concepto de sabiduría, o la actitud del sabio explicada a través del mito de la caverna que han sido más enriquecedores.
Con este ya son dos los libros de Platón que me he leído y juro k no me apetece leer ninguno más.
Creo que la filosofía de este tipo es totalmente innacesible, yo, que se supone que algo me interesaba, acabe tardando en leerlo un montón y se me hizo muy cuesta arriba, lo dejé muchas veces.
Entiendo que no es mi género predilecto, no niego que no esté brillantemente escrito y que no proponga una retahíla de ideas, reflexiones y argumentos interesantes. Pero como no veo aplicabilidad en muchas cosas en mi entorno inmediato siento que gran parte es conocimiento puro y duro, para alguien que le apetezca estudiar sobre política. Si busco un libro para entender la trascendencia del pensamiento platónico en nuestra sociedad consultaría algo más fácil de leer. Aún así ha sido curioso y divertido a veces.
Hay temas, como el alma filosófica, la división del mundo visible y el mundo inteligible y por tanto el concepto de sabiduría, o la actitud del sabio explicada a través del mito de la caverna que han sido más enriquecedores.
Con este ya son dos los libros de Platón que me he leído y juro k no me apetece leer ninguno más.
February 24, 2017
Some very useful insights, but felt the author could be a little too harsh at times, interpreting Plato too much at face value and from a strictly materialistic point of view, in the manner of Bertrand Russell. There were some mistakes in my view too, such as Blackburn's assertion that Plato proposed a caste system. This would imply that there was no movement within the tripartite system from one class to another, whereas Plato specifically says that bronze or silver-souled parents could give birth to a gold-souled child. Likewise, gold-souled parents could give birth to silver or bronze-souled children. In any case, Blackburn falls too readily for the idea that Plato is putting forward a blueprint for a utopian society, rather than provoking the reader into thinking for himself / herself.
August 2, 2025
Concise, well worded, thoughtful. I wouldn't call this a biography of Republic though--more of a summary/explanation.
I would say Blackburn methodically picks Plato into pieces, although he does it very gently. Truthfully I agree with most of the his criticisms in the book--I just finished reading Republic and logically, Plato is a complete mess! Blackburn tries to defend him somewhat, playing both sides, but it really isn't convincing. The guy really did have a lot of stupid and evil ideas.
I guess best defense he puts up is to say that Plato truly did think seeking truth was the highest cause which has been a good and driving force in western civilization. But I'm also pretty sure he wasn't the first to prioritize seeking truth.
This book did help me understand some of Plato's arguments better.
I would say Blackburn methodically picks Plato into pieces, although he does it very gently. Truthfully I agree with most of the his criticisms in the book--I just finished reading Republic and logically, Plato is a complete mess! Blackburn tries to defend him somewhat, playing both sides, but it really isn't convincing. The guy really did have a lot of stupid and evil ideas.
I guess best defense he puts up is to say that Plato truly did think seeking truth was the highest cause which has been a good and driving force in western civilization. But I'm also pretty sure he wasn't the first to prioritize seeking truth.
This book did help me understand some of Plato's arguments better.
August 20, 2023
Useful for a basic and general introduction to Plato's Republic, explained in a practical way by way of appeal to historical examples of Athenian injustices. Links themes from Plato's work with more modern interpretations which can offer unique insights into the scope and influence of the Republic. If reading as part of a philosophy module on Plato, there isn't much by way of deep analysis and argumentative critique of the work itself. On this basis, other sources would likely be better for philosophy essays. The book is best used as an overview of the Republic's central themes, in keeping with its biographical nature.
February 24, 2024
It isn’t quite right to see this as Blackburn takes on Plato. The author, well known for his attempts to bring Philosophy to the people, gives an educated rendering of the Republic which does make it more accessible to a lay audience, and he does make lots of interesting critical observations, and yet he does near to nothing to say how Plato might have responded to those criticisms. I get that many are up in arms about the book, but I just enjoyed it for what is was while always keeping in mind that a little more depth might have benefited the end product.
January 1, 2026
Blackburn is very critical of Plato, which is a tonic when most other commentstors fawn over him. I even find myself defending Plato, which is very welcome.
Blackburn is unfortunately a bit too uninterested in Plato to actually do a first rate job demolishing him and sometimes seems to misunderstand certain passages. He's also very sure that the reader agrees with him that capitalism, neoconservatism and George W Bush are very bad, which is a bit annoying.
Blackburn is unfortunately a bit too uninterested in Plato to actually do a first rate job demolishing him and sometimes seems to misunderstand certain passages. He's also very sure that the reader agrees with him that capitalism, neoconservatism and George W Bush are very bad, which is a bit annoying.
March 18, 2021
Enjoyed this survey of The Republic and how its influence has spread throughout the world both in good ways and opposition. Helpful in my readings both directly and the rabbit hole that Plato has created for me, but neglected somehow throughout my life. As per recent audio reads I will be watching for a hard copy to annotate and compare to text closely.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews