Customer Reviews

Penguin Classics Republic

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Sir Desmond Lee's second edition of this, the translation of Plato's Republic, misses the mark it seeks to strike. By using too much contemporary (for the 1970's) English, we lose the feel for what Plato was actually trying to say. This translation would have read much better had it followed the original text more faithfully. This, though, is one of the pitfalls of writing for Penguin: if it's a translated work, it better sound modern--no matter that it was written two millenia ago.

But The Republic itself? Stunningly simple. Beautifully wrought. Criticized as a bone thrown to totalitarianism, this work still remains the core of all modern political, social and philosophical thought. Most powerful is the opening Book, where Socrates definitively refutes the common herd's definition of justice. The masterful reasoning he employs to demolish Thrasymachus's argument that justice is that which is in the interest of the stronger party will enlighten as well as refresh: might does not make right, then or now. The later Books pack comparatively less punch, but nonetheless will give any thoughtful person plenty to sink his teeth into. The philosophical section on the Line, the Sun and the Cave cannot be understood without supplemental reading, as they form an integral part of Plato's theory of Forms, an idea he never fleshed out concretely in any one tract. Modern philosophy departments have consigned this book to the trash heap, to which the objective reader can only say this: If The Republic is trash, then our own generation's literary legacy looks bleak indeed.

Though by the look of it Plato's masterwork appears daunting I devoured it from the start. Though his idea's about government may seem to many beyong the pale Plato knew very well that his ideal government was just that, an ideal. Even if you don't agree with him (and I do) he will start you on a train of thought to a higher plain.

Just read it. Plato's idea shaped so many other's after him. If you don't understand what Plato was trying to say then you're doing yourself a disservice. Just in readin this, the reader realyl begins to think. You'll get better at thinking by the time the book is done, for this book teaches the reader how to think. All the ideas are presented in dialog, but if you can just look at what is being said you'll begin to understand. If you only read one thing, make it be this.

Here one can found Plato's view on many topics important to philosophical thinking of all times, but which could be summarized by the search of the true meanings of the adjectives "just" and its antinomy "unjust", and if it pays to be just and, if so, what is the proper reward for such a conduct and the proper punishment to its contrary behavior.
The method utilized by Plato is the dialectical method and the reader is guided trough discoursive logical reasonning till he arrives at Plato's conclusions on many matters he sees as essential to pursue the objective of knowing what is the reward of a just conduct in human life. Issues like infanticide, women's position in society, slavery and many others are approached in a very direct way and one can be surprised at the position Plato takes in regard of each one of them. The Introductory explanation made by the translator, which also guides all of us trough the intrincacies of the challenges he faced in the translations, addds value and concistency to the reading, which is a classic and a must for everyone interested in History of Greece, the heritage it bequeathed to the Western civilization and the fist sound steps of philosophical thinking, which can be traced back to no the Greece Antiquity.

It has been said that all philosophic work of the past 2400 years stands as footnotes to Plato's writings. 'Do the ends justify the means? What is justice? Whom does it serve? Who should serve as its guardians? Is it absolute or relative?'
Plato's protagonist is his old teacher, Socrates. The arguments are presented as dialogues and thus embody a literary aspect different from many, although certainly not all, subsequent philosophical writings. His object is "no trivial question, but the manner in which a man ought to live." The answers are seen to point to the manner in which a utopian society should be operated.
As a storied mountain calls to a climber from afar, Plato calls to the student of the art of thinking. This is why we read Plato, for the "neo-Platonists" -- Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Whitehead, Gödel, and others -- have certainly propounded improved philosophy. But it is Plato on whom they improve. Most thinkers (perhaps especially most mathematicians and logicians) yet agree with Plato, at least insofar as his understanding of "form" -- often adapted or restated as: ideas / perfection / consciousness / mind / or, 'the thing in itself'.
Plato's realm of [what he calls] "forms" acknowledges the mysterious, yet logically necessary, existence of non-material reality. In Republic he views this as the realm of reference in constructing his understanding of an ideal society. We find in the work of subsequent thinkers (and within Plato's Republic as well) that this non-material reality is perhaps more easily recognized in purer considerations of reason, aesthetics, mathematics, music, love, spiritual experience, and ultimately in consciousness itself, than in idealized human social institutions. Mathematics, for example, although readily practiced in material ways, is not itself material. Thus the understanding of the purity of reason as opposed to the synthetic (and uncertain) nature of empiricism, arises from the work of Plato (and is particularly well developed in Descartes' existentialism).
Modern readers should rightly find that Plato regards the State too highly; in pursuit of an ideal State his supposedly improved citizen is highly restricted and censored. His "utopian" citizens are automatons, bred by the State; unsanctioned infants are "disposed of." Where his ideas are wrongly developed, they are in fact important ideas, i.e., they are issues deserving serious examination. Should the ruling class be restricted to philosophers? Plato says yes, that wisdom and intellectual insight are more desirable in leaders than are either birthright or popularity. Of course we, in the democratic West, tend to see this idea as totalitarianism, but it remains an interesting argument.
Although the product of polytheistic culture, Plato is leery of the tangled accounts of the gods received from the poets, Homer, Hesiod, etc. His view of the divine -- that "the chief good" has one eternal, unchanging and surpassingly superior form -- which he also calls "Providence", hints strongly of the common ground which was to emerge between neo-Platonism and monotheism. Like Plato's proverbial cave dwellers, we perceive this transcendent entity through poorly understood "shadows" of the actual truth. Beside its philosophical, literary, political, and theological aspects, Republic is also important as a treatise on psychology, in fact the science of mind seems to have progressed very little beyond Plato's insights. Books 5-7 are particularly fascinating.

This books explained why it is important to be just, and to some extend who is the best people. Being also a believer of J. S. Mill, I appreciate the value of diversity and wouldn't judge who is the best, but the Republic of Plato made it clear who is the most suitable to rule. I strongly recomment you read this book before you pick up Machiavelli.

Although this book is heavy reading and tends to be overlooked by the average reader it is a good book for any person to read. This was the first book that I had ever read on the topic of philosophy but I didn't find the topic too hard to digest.
Like all philosophy the point of this book is not to absorb fact after fact but break down the meaning of the topic and analyze it. Most people will find that some of the parts in the book are a bit obscure but the point is that it gets you thinking! If you learn nothing from Plato and Socrates then at the very least they will have challenged you form your own theories and opinions.
Therein lies the beauty of Plato and all good philosophical works.
I also recommend Symposium by Plato which is lighter and more accessable.

In The Republic, Plato aims to persuade the reader that justice is the highest end that man, as a micro-cosm of society, can pursue, because it creates a virtuous political harmony. This is an appealing idea if one believes in a perfectly functioning political system characterized by eternal balance. However, the actual attainment of this goal is only plausible if one grants Plato both his moral conception of human nature and his conception of the existence of "pure forms" of earthly things in heaven. In other words, Platonic justice rests on platonic psychology and platonic theology. Take away these arguments, and his case for justice is pure rhetoric, based on inaccurate descriptions of political reality and a dangerous defense of elitism by emphasizing men's "roles" and "crafts" over their free will and liberty. But even this elitist rhetoric must be taken seriously, for it has attracted numerous adherents and affected society in dramatically positive ways over the last 2000 years. Negative liberties and mutual Hobbesian suspicion alone cannot build a society. Furthermore, elitist criticisms can be made of any society, including any of our nominally democratic modern regimes. Plato is merely up front about his elitism. Why should we criticize him for that?

Just as Catholics bow down to the Cross, us philosophers read the writings of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as the Trinity. One reviewer made the comment: "I want answers! I can get more answers from a Teen Magazine" What an ignorant statement, I think. Because Socrates says that the best knowledge comes from knowing that we know nothing. The problem with the Bible, is that people think it is all the answers. It isn't to be expected to be the answer for everything, just as this book isn't suppose to be the answer for everything. These are merely theories.

What I like about the book is how Socrates thinks we should be good for the sake of it, rather than for what it gets us. For example, why do we tell our children to be just? Does being just mean being cruel and cunning underneath, while they are financially successful and appear to be honest? Socrates claims that the truly just person will be good even though he doesn't always get what he wants in life. Basically that justice is it's own reward.

One thing I agree is that artists, as Socrates says, is that they tend to create illusions. But, I don't agree that they need to be censored; that's just hogwash. Nor do I think that a village should raise a child, or that a man should stick to one career his whole life. In their time, they lived by the authority of the poets, whereas nowadays people go by the Koran or the Bible for their answers.

After reading this book I realized why it remains so popular more than two thousand years after it was written. It has some memorable phrases, those worth knowing by heart and if possible living a life in accordance to the direction they point. I rejoiced at how the dialogue is conducted and how Plato arrives at his conclusion, going step by step. The way it is written make it easy to follow, in fact we feel as if we were in the same room as the author. It is also amazing how actual the content is (seems like it was written yesterday) in both subjects and questionings.
The book is also not too abstract to a point that one can't grasp the concepts, but is philosophically palpable. The topics range from day-to-day actions to the immortality of the soul; from justice to happiness; from Timarchy to Democracy... Although not all conclusions should be taken too seriously or meticulously, his ideas are worth reading and most important - thought about. Plato and his ideal state (the form) will probably never become a reality, but from this ideal we can judge how far we are, and perhaps realize that "shadows" are all we see.
The Republic is an excellent book and should be read as such, and not as a manuscript of the TRUTH. It is though a guide, and a direction pointer towards the ultimate...realm!? Or as Plato perhaps would put it: towards the exit of the cave.