Customer Reviews

The Republic Of Plato: Second Edition

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Plato's Republic is really beyond reviews, and it would be presumptuous do anything other than encourage potential readers to study it for themselves. As the overt political slants of some of the other reviews suggest, his ideas resonate in the modern world as much as they did in his own. Whether a reader approaches Republic with positive or negative prejudices, the actual text of the argument forces constant reevaluation and refinement of those preexisting opinions.

Allan Bloom has created a literal translation that is ideal for those who truly wish to engage with Plato. Most other translators have used non-literal methods that attempt to convey in a more contemporary form what Plato "meant" by his arguments. However, in this process the translator's own interpretation of Plato's argument inevitably influences the language in which he renders his translation. Bloom has attempted, with a great degree of success, to separate the processes of translation and interpretation. Rather than imposing his reading on the text itself, he express it in a thought-provoking interpretive essay that follows the text

This is probably not the easiest translation of Plato to read, because Bloom does not attempt to serve as a baby-sitter for his readers. However, the extra time spent in reading this version will be well rewarded by a deeper understanding of Plato's argument.

What is so fascinating about this translation and the essay is that it deviates in important ways from the typical Christian Platonist conception of philosophy. Bllom is engaged in a war of sorts, it is stunning oh so many other academics fail to recognize how Bloom undermines their common assumptions about 'The Republic' and philosophy itself. Note the absence of comment on the 'Divided Line' of Book VI, and the entire discussion of the 'Theory of Forms' get short shrift. Why? There is a reason, if you follow the interpretitive essay, a parenthitic expression sends shivers- did Bloom really suggest 'The Just City in Speech' is not the best regime? Haunting. This view of 'The Republic' is deeply dependent on Leo Strauss' earlier groundbreaking sensitivity to irony. This is easy to say-IRONY- Plato was ironic, "The Republic' is ironic, but what does that really mean? An excellent read, and read, and read again.

Why get *this* Republic rather than some other translation? Because Allan Bloom is wonderfully attentive to the fact that the ancient greek civilization is a totally alien society whose common ground with modern western civilization is reason, rather than details of culture.

For example, Bloom starts his translation with a mini rant about the title itself. The original Greek title is better translated "The Regime". The traditional title is retained in Bloom's translation so that people know this is the same book as all the other translations but that's the *only* place in the book that this word is translated as "republic", everywhere but in the title it is translated as "regime". Bloom really wants you to know that the book isn't about a *form* of government (as though a good society could be established by clever arrangement of voting powers and checks and balances as the founders of the US later thought).

The book is about the actual people in charge of society and what their *character* is like. What virtues should the leaders have? How does such virtue work? How can such virtue be cultivated? This focus (and the characterization of virtue in a foreign language with foriegn starting assumptions about human nature and the "structure of the soul") is what was alien about the Greeks. Connecting modern readers with an alien culture that was concerned with *universally valid* reasoning about how people ought to be when coming together in groups is the point of reading it.

Bloom's whole orientation this way is the joy of this translation of Plato's "Regime" (or "Republic" if you prefer the traditional English title).

The reason I gave it only 4 stars was that, personally, Plato's original work seemed silly and amateurish to me. Socrates will offer some crazy theory with and the other characters will just say "Yes that's so", without a peep of objection. If the writing wasn't a dialogue it would require better structuring and argument and yet as a dialogue it rang false to me. The characters were cardboard cutouts saying what it was necessary for them to say for Plato to make the points he wants to make.

(It's worth pointing out that I've been accused of reading shallowly. For example, the characters are supposed to be well known. Thrasymachus was a sophist. Some of the people Plato talks to are young men and may be offered as "how young men think and politics" and in the meantime the dialogue was written after some of these same young men siezed power and had lots of people killed in political purges of Athens (which was one of the reasons Socrates was later killed for "corrupting the youth" once the young men he'd corrupted lost power - Socrates wasn't just killed for "being gay" as some modern spins have it.) Imagine this as a conversation backstage of the Tonight Show between a 25 year old Bill Clinton (one of the young men), Pat Robertson (as a philosopher from a competing school IE a sophist like Thrasymachus), Warren Buffet (an old wealthy man trying to make good on a life spent on things other than philosophy) and so on. The conversation would mean something to people right now that it didn't to people who didn't know who any of those people are. Let's just say that maybe I didn't get all the resonances and for that reason the book didn't do for much as me as I'd expect a five star book to do.)

If you're comparing translations of this book and you're only buying one, this is the one to buy. On the other hand, if you're looking for good books on philosophy that are more directly written for modern Americans, you might want to try one of Allan Bloom's original books "The Closing of the American Mind". It's original title (the publishers thought this title wouldn't sell as well) was "Souls Without Longing" and, personally, I think Bloom's title is more honest and stirring. I originally picked up "The Closing of the American Mind" because I saw it in a bookstore and realized "Hey that's written by the same curmudgeon who translated my copy of The Republic in such a distinctive way. I bet his original books are neat too." I'm glad I did.

One thing worth mentioning is that Bloom was working at the University of Chicago and is nominally part of the neoconservative movement. Not so much like Condi Rice and W. Bush's neoconservatism... the academic neocons are more like Marx was to Stalin or Mao, "theory driven and thoughtful" compared to the actual politicians's "pragmatic and thoughtless but guided by the theory". (Another possible model for the relationship is between Nietzche and the Nazis where they grossly misinterpreted the few of his ideas they borrowed.)

Other people in Bloom's school with interesting books are Leo Strauss with "The City and Man" and Francis Fukuyama with "The End of History and the Last Man". Irving Kristol is a sort of bridge, being in philosophy and politics both, and in some sense founding the explicit idea of "neoconservatism". Also, Saul Bellow wrote a novel that was a thinly veiled portrait of Bloom, called "Ravelstein".

If I was going to chart out the sweep of human political thinking I'd start with Plato's Republic. Then I'd read Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man" where Fukuyama argues that Kant and Hegel were right that there will be no new ideas in human political development beyond rights-respecting liberal democractic societies with largely market-oriented free-trading economic systems because they perfectly satisfied human nature as well as could be done. Then (because Fukuyama eventually retracted the claim of the book because he realized that genetic engineering, psychopharmacology, cybernetics, and transhuman projects in general will obsolete human nature itself and make more progress possible) I'd read some science fiction sketching out possible transhuman futures: Greg Egan's "Permutation City" and "Diaspora" would work and Iain M. Banks's novels on The Culture would work as well. Between them they offer three radically different takes on where things could go.

Plato's 'Republic' is one of the most important works of ancient Greek philosophy, and one of the foundation pieces of political science and political philosophy of that and subsequent ages. It was one of the first pieces I read when undertaking a political science degree. This translation by Allan Bloom is perhaps the most recent 'Republic' I have read.

Plato was not only a great philosopher, but also a great writer. While few master the classical Greek language sufficient to undertake its study in the original language, the text appears in countless translated forms of varying degrees of integrity. This translation by Bloom is one of the best literal translations - it stays very closely to the original, explaining things that do not translate easily, but avoiding many interpretation issues that often show more of the philosophy and/or politics of the translator than of Plato.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a classic of Western literature and of world literature.

There probably isn't much I can add in a scholarly vein to what people have already said about Plato. So I thought I would make a few personal observations from the standpoint of a somewhat philosophically literate, 21st century man who is reading such an august classic in middle age.

I came to this book with more of a background in modern epistemology and the philosophy of science than in classical philosophy. So political philosophy isn't exactly my strong suit, but nevertheless I found the book interesting reading in a way I hadn't really thought of before.

Actually, I had read portions of this book 20 years ago when I was a young student first studying philosophy, and I have to say, there is something to be said for having a more mature outlook in approaching such a venerable work. At the time I thought political philosophy pretty dull stuff, and besides, I felt there was no real way to answer any of the important political questions that get debated here, despite the easy way Socrates disposes of everybody else's half-baked opinions and theories.

The fact is, if you move ahead 2400 years and read something like Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies," an advanced modern work, you can see how much, or how little, political philosophy has progressed in the last 24 centuries.
Well, that may be true, but at least with this book you know where it basically all started. The best way to decide this issue is to read the book and decide for yourself.

Although entitled "The Republic," this society isn't like any republic you've probably ever read about. Plato proposes an ant- like communism where there is no private ownership of property, philosophers are kings, kings are philosophers, people cultivate physical, moral, and ethical qualities, and the idea of the good takes the place of political and social virtues.

Another odd facet is that the bravest citizens are permitted more wives than those less brave in battle. And then there is the infamous proposition that all poets and artists are to be banished since they are harmful purveyors of false illusions.
I find the Socratic method as a way of moving along the dialogue between the participants sort of interesting, and it is certainly an effective device. However, none of these people, even the famous Sophist Thrasymachus, are really Socrates' intellectual equal, so he really doesn't have much competition here.

If ancient Athens disproportionately had so many towering intellects, relative to its small population (about 20,000 people, most of whom were slaves anyway), you'd think they would show up in Plato's dialogues more. But all we seem to get are second- raters who are really no match for the clever Socrates. Of course, since the dialogues we have were written down by Socrates' most famous student, Plato, perhaps the cards were stacked a little in his teacher's favor.

Yet I would say this is still a great book. Classical scholars say there are more perfect, less flawed dialogues than Plato's Republic, but none that are as profound, wide-ranging, and as influential and important for later philosophy. As someone once wrote, in a sense the entire history of western philosophy "consists of nothing but footnotes to Plato." After finally reading it, I can see why there is so much truth to that statement.

Plato's purpose here is to find the definition and nature of justice such as whether the just man is happier than the unjust man. I found that the dictionary says little more than "doing what's right" which doesn't say much.

The discussion opens with conventional definitions for justice that anyone might come up with such as "speaking the truth and giving back what one takes." But consider borrowing a weapon from a friend who asks for it back in a violent state of mind. Similarly, there can be times when telling the truth is wrong.

That definition seems wrong because it implies that you may have to harm a friend. So the second definition offered is that justice is benefiting your friends and harming your enemies. But this definition turns out to make justice useless because with matters of health, the doctor, not the just man, is most capable of benefiting friends and harming enemies. Furthermore, the doctor is useless to those who aren't sick. This definition really collapses when we consider that we may mistake people's true natures and be enemies with good people. Then it would be just to harm good people. Besides, harming a person makes him worse and this can't be justice. All this leaves in the definition is to benefit all people, which doesn't really say anything. Plato did not mean that punishing is harming them because then the purpose is to make them better. However, Nietzsche said that the purpose of punishment is to improve those--who punish.

The argument that justice is giving what is owed will be salvaged, however through this example: Cooking gives what is owed to food and learning gives what is owed to the mind. An example not used in the book is borrowing money with interest. You would owe the bank more than you borrowed, and owe it back within an specified time. This shows "giving what is owed" is more accurate than "giving back what one takes." This definition seems right, but hazy.

The next definition Plato proposes is "Might is Right", or obeying authority. The obvious fault here is that leaders make mistakes. Hairsplitting arguments follow which support the argument. The true doctor heals people and does not raise children or make money. A doctor only does those things inasmuch as he is also a parent and wage earner. A ruler acts in the best interest of those ruled and a citizen obeys the rulers. When the rulers fail in their duty, they are not truly rulers and the citizens should not obey them. This idea along with giving what one owes will come together for the definition. The discussion now moves toward the effects of justice and injustice.

The question comes up whether injustice can be good for a person to practice, if they can seem just and "get away with it." Plato describes tyranny as the most extreme injustice, "which by stealth and force, takes away what belongs to others, both what is sacred and profane, private and public, not bit by bit but all at once." The reader will later see tyranny to be the worst state and the tyrannic man to be the most unhappy.

The just man, the discussion goes, would be willing but unable to get the better of the unjust man but unwilling to get the better of the just man. The unjust man would be willing and able to get the better of both. Even gangs must have some justice in order for them to function because injustice breeds factions and quarrels. Unjust people working alone would be at faction within themselves. Plato then begins an analogy that the eyes can only do what they were meant to do if they have the virtue of seeing, whereas their vice would be blindness. He extends this analogy to mean that the virtue of the soul is justice, the vice injustice and that what the soul was meant to do was be happy. Like many of the analogies in this book, we may wonder whether the comparison is fairly drawn. At this point, little has really been concluded because before we can determine whether justice is a virtue or vice or the one who has it is happy or unhappy, justice itself must be defined. To define it, Plato looks to the ideal state, where it should be easier to observe than in an individual.

The purpose of creating a state was so that each person didn't have to farm his own food, make his own clothes, etc. In The Republic, each person has a function to serve-- one skill they excel in. They don't meddle in fields that aren't their own. Justice in this state lies in the relation the three classes of ruler, guardian, and craftsmen have to each other. Bringing this back to the individual, the classes correspond with wisdom, emotion, and desire, respectively. The just man's mind should be ordered just like the just state. If there is a conflict between desire and wisdom, emotion should take the side of wisdom. Plato now goes into more detail about why tyranny is the most unjust and unhappy state. It is because the worst parts are enslaved by the best parts; the desires are in control of the wisdom and emotion. The tyrant purges the city of the courageous, intelligent, etc. "Throughout his entire life his is full of fear, overflowing with convulsions and pains, indeed resembles the disposition of the city he rules."

Plato concludes that justice is beneficial for its own sake regardless of reputation or "being caught". Plato's definition is convincing yet hardly what I expected. We all have our own sense of justice despite lacking a definition of it. My philosophy is that injustice is harmful to the doer and others as well and vice versa. For example, a drunk driver could kill themselves and others as well. "The Republic" stands as the best tangible description of what justice is.

The famous French philosopher, Rene Descartes, once said that the reading of good books "is like a conversation with the finest men of past centuries." I agree with Descartes; and there are probably few better groups of people to have an intelligent conversation with than Socrates and his friends.

Allan Bloom's translation is a breath of much needed fresh air. We have here a very literal translation of The Republic. Bloom doesn't try to spoon feed Plato to us, and I for one am very glad about that. In the introduction Bloom makes, in my opinion, a very powerful case for the literal translation of The Republic. When I first picked this translation up I wasn't sure that a strictly literal translation was really need, so I'm greatful for this introduction. Bloom tells us precisely why he thinks that it is a good idea to have a literal translation and he's darn convincing, I say.

Give this a shot. Lord knows you'll get more out of it than that dreadful Penguin translation. :)

If you love philosphy, this is the best book. There are many different versions of this book but this is the best one.

Ah... those lectures were invaluable. Pick up a copy and do some thinking!!!

For serious students of Plato (i.e. of philosophy) Bloom's translation is a must. Nowadays few can read Greek comfortably, and a translation that does not cheat the readers is needed. There is in fact a conspiracy in Anglo-american universities to prevent students from reading this particular translation, because Bloom was a student of Leo Strauss and the interpretative essay at the end of this translation is very much influenced by his teacher. You'd be surprised how many professors would list all the translations except this one on a syllabus. Well, without getting into a full explanation of the war on Strauss, let's just say that in a democracy such a disturbing practice is less effective than its practioners would expect. Bloom's translation has survived many years. (Gilbert Ryle, who trashed it in NY review of books, though still the major influence in some quarters, is being forgotten.) Conclusion? BUY THIS TRANSLATION AND READ IT.