The Republic

Rating:
Summary: the "Johnny Be Good", the Model T of philosophy
Review: This is where it all started........... This book is to philosophy what "the Jazz Singer" is to film, or perhaps more like that first film of the moving train (the one that made people flee the theatre). Plato is what Chuck Berry is to rock and roll, in that Plato didn't start philosophy, he was the first to become a commercial success at it, the first to sort of put a Brand Name on it.... He is the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to philosophy's Grunge explosion.... Plato is to philosophy what the unkown author of Beowulf is to epic lyricism.... He is the "Rhythm and Blues" to David Hume's Elvis... sort of in the way that makes Nietzsche philosophy's Black Sabbath, and therefore Dostoyevski is sort of an Iggy Pop/Johnny Rotten character... inspiring the backlash of the 80s and Disco (Ayn Rand) to make things safe for the consumer culture again. (All the while keep in mind that Phillip Glass/Steve Reich = Occam, Descartes = singer/songwriters, and Marquis De Sade = Eminem and Scandanavian Black Metal) ................ this presents a problem however: if Tolstoy is our Beatles (Babe Ruth), then we inadvertantly relegate Chekov to being the Rolling Stones (maybe sort of Joe Dimaggio) of Russian literature (sort of always around, and always good, but just not the Beatles)............................ but back to Plato: The Republic did for philosophy what Guttenburg's moveable type did for the Bible... made it available to EVERYONE,not just the heads of church. Made it so that everyone could read and interpret, rather than be spoon fed. Democracy! This is where jazz comes from: interpretation on a theme. If Plato was jazz's Louis Armstrong then James Joyce is its Charlie Parker, just as Elvin Jones is the Kerouac to jazz drumming, and Tito Puente is its Gabriel Garcia Marquez.... And if Saint Thomas Aquinas is to philosophy what Elton John is to British sensations, then we must ask whether Plato is to be considered the Iron Maiden or the Freddie Mercury of Queen? only time will tell.

Rating:
Summary: An enemy of the arts?
Review: Plato's hostility to the mimetic arts, his metaphysic of suprasensible Forms and his vision of the authoritarian ideal republic have made him a figure of some notoriety in the history of philosophy, leading his opponents to interpret him, quite variously as a Philistine, an elitist, a Father of Lies, a slanderer of reality, an ideologue of totalitarianism and, most controversially, as an enemy of the arts. Iris Murdoch, in her amusing and entertaining study, "The Fire and the Sun, Why Plato Banished the Poets" reproaches him for his "puritanical aesthetic." He places all crafts, arts or skills (techne) on a hierarchy of the least useful or genuine, namely, the representational arts, then the more genuine, such as woodcraft and medicine, culminating in the highest and most rewarding, philosophical contemplation, of which only philosopher-rulers are capable; that is to say, those who have achieved self-control and who are adept at disputation and dialectic skill, in their pursuit of the truth of the pure Forms. A binary opposition exists between knowledge, (episteme) which is the understanding of the pure Forms, and mere opinion. (doxa) Knowledge is denied to the mimetic arts (poetry, music, the visual arts) which stand at the third remove from truth and which are false, illusory copies of the objects of the sensible world, that are themselves inferior replicas of their truer, more perfect Forms. As such, artists stand at the lowest cognitive level. The chief good being the formation of the ideal republic, Plato saw it reasonable for the legislator, the philosopher-ruler, to outlaw all forms of art, such as tragedy, which may represent undesirable actions, such as weeping, boisterousness and so forth, since they may tempt spectators to behave intemperately and hence induce moral corruption. He believed that the soul was vulnerable to the influences of strong emotions, such as grief and pity; spectators of tragedy may empathise with the unfortunate characters to such a degree that they neglect the pursuit of virtue and their specialised role in the republic. The good of art must be subordinated to the good of the republic. Only art which is closely related to beauty, which is in turn, a measure of truth and goodness, can be permitted. Young guardians must be prevented, by means of censorship, of coming into contact with poetry and stories that portray the gods in a bad light. Poets must be banished from the republic, on account of their spurious claim to the knowledge of the events they represent. Art, in Plato, is thus distinctly separated from knowledge. Not only that, but it is even regarded as positively detrimental to it. It comes as a paradox, however, that Plato was himself an accomplished mimetic artist, as his virtuosity in using the dialogue form attests. Indeed, "The Republic" is possibly the finest Socratic dialogue. His regard for the arts was indubitably high. Plato does also say at one point that art must be judged on the terms of its own level of "reality" since it is nevertheless capable of genuine representations that correspond to actual states (as opposed to apparent, illusory states) of the good.

Rating:
Summary: A good intro, but lacks the meat of true philosophy
Review: Yes I read this, and I must say I am slightly dissapointed. I have come to hear about how revolutionary this book is, so I decided to pick it up. It wasn't bad, per say, just not the breakthrough it clames to be. I mean come on, he is just asking questions the whole damn time. What I want is answers, that is all. I could get more information from a teen magazine's Q&A section, at least there is some completion of thought there. Oh well, I guess it is too much to expect from a polythiest hethen.

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely necessary, but don't put it on a pedestal
Review: Plato's Republic is the fount from which nearly all Western thought flows. Pretty much everything written in that tradition either borrows from Plato or refutes him, and the Republic articulates his philosophies more fully than any of his other works(although the Timaeus is more mature and the Symposium is an amazing discussion on a single point). I must disagree with both of the main camps on this site; it is neither just a work of political philosophy NOR just a work of moral psychology(how to order your mind). Plato thought that all things should reflect the ultimate good, so that the ideal society would be ordered in the exact same way that the ideal human being would be. Thus, every part of one's psyche would correspond to a part of society(it's a microcosm!), and the "higher" parts of one's mind would be mirrored in the Guardians, the "higher" parts of society.

With that said, it is easy to see that the Republic proposes many things that disgust most modern human beings: censorship for political stability, ostracism of those with "weak" (read: human, sensitive, or some equivalent) emotions, killing young children, government regulation of sexual activity, and such. Even when Plato tries to give women equal rights, an _extremely_ radical idea in Ancient Greece, his ancient prejudices show up when he calls them "equal but weaker in all ways(morally, intellectually, and physically)".

Despite all of its shortcomings, the Republic was the work that singlehandedly separated the real from the ideal in Western civilization, and it also defined the kinds of questions that Western philosophers would try to answer until the 20th century. Pick up a book of Western philosophy at random, and I guarantee you that some issue introduced in the Republic will hit you within the first five pages. Even the Communist Manifesto rips off his discourse on women and his notion of work defining human beings. The Republic was the first work of real philosophy in the conversation of ideals that continues to this very day in fields as diverse as politics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and religion. (PS: If you think Plato's an idealistic fool, read Aristotle. So did he.)

Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece of philosophy and scholarship
Review: I've used this text for some time in my undergraduate courses, with great success. Waterfield's translation is accurate and scholarly, and the introduction and notes make this edition a perfect introduction to Plato's philosophy.

As for the value of the text itself, little needs to be said. Plato's Republic is one of the most important works in the history of philosophy, and every well-educated person ought to have read it at least once. There is some controversy among scholars over whether the work is primarily one of political philosophy or of moral psychology, but Plato perhaps did not draw these distinctions the way we do: one can certainly learn a great deal about both areas from reading this one work.

Rating:
Summary: Great- from a students perspective
Review: I read this book in conjunction with Utopia for my Senior Thesis and was expecting it to be very difficult. Thank god it wasn't. Through dialogue, Socrates proves many interesting philosophical ideas that are easy enough to understand by most high school students yet complex enough to have entire college courses dedicated to their study. It seems to me that there are few books written that have had such profound impact on their field. Plato's Repulic is the defining book on the philosophical field, and is the beginnings for all Utopian literature. Any student or avid reader who is interested in understanding where modern thought started should read The Republic before anything else.

Rating:
Summary: I agree with Thrasymachus
Review: I wrote one prior review here of the Republic, but having finished it I wanted to add something to my previous comments.

Early on in the book there is the famous exchange between Socrates and the Sophist, Thrasymachus. Socrates asks him for his definition of Justice, and Thasymachus responds that "Justice is the interest of the stronger."

Socrates then uses his famous eponymous method to seemingly demolish the Sophist's position, and then presents his own view instead.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Thrasymachus here, if only on practical and historical grounds. Justice usually is the interest of the stronger. Perhaps this is not what Justice should be in human and social terms, but that's the reality.

Socrates' definition is a nice ideal, but rarely works out that way in practice. If one thinks of Thrasymachus' definition as simply pragmatic and realistic, and Socrates' definition as being the ideal that a true republic (or whatever society) should strive for, then I think this is a more accurate view of the situation. Socrates makes Thrasymachus' idea appear invalid, but in fact, his idea is more accurate in terms of how things actually work out in most parts of the world (and even in the US) than is Socrates' idea.

Not that this is right or even desirable, it's just the way things are.

Rating:
Summary: The classic--what did you expect?
Review: 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 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.

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.

Rating:
Summary: Necessary Reading For ANYONE
Review: Plato's Republic is unparalleled in its coverage of all areas of life. While Plato addresses metaphysical issues, he does so with language and analogies that most people can grasp with studious reading. But Plato talks about much more than metaphysics. Marriage, music, war, kings, procreation and more are all topics of discussion for Plato's dialog. In addition to the teachings about life, this book also offers a great introduction to philosophy. The famous "cave story" illustrates not only the purpose of philosophy, but also the inherent difficulties. While this book is absolutely necessary for students of philosophy and religion, I think there are golden truths for all people no matter what they do.

So, why this particular translation of the work? This translation offers the best ease in reading while mainting a tight grasp of the original Greek meanings of Plato's text. Besides, it isn't that expensive.

This book is clearly a timeless classic, and if you can't read classical Greek, this translation is probably the best you will get.

Rating:
Summary: Superb translation true to Plato's analogy
Review: What makes this translation so wonderful is that Waterfield never loses sight of the whole point of the Republic -- that it is an ANALOGY of man, or more to the point man's soul/psyche. Numerous scholars pigeon-hole this as a political (did some review here say elitist?) treatise. And this is exactly why this translation shines: the Republic was never meant to be read politically -- Socrates says this explicitly at the dialogue's outset. When Socrates and company meet Sophocles at the very beginning, the subject is sex and self-control. This leads to questions of justice and harmony within a human being. With everyone throwing their hands in the air, Socrates proposes the analogy for the human psyche. Only by looking at something immense can we draw conclusions about something internal. Therefore our appetitive needs are equated to the merchants, our passions and sense of self (our sense of "I") become the Guardians, and our intellect and reason are likened to the Philosopher King. When the "Republic" harmonizes (each to their own "job" with no intrusion upon the other "citizens") the soul reaches the state of justice -- the point where our reason will desire and our desire will reason.

Waterfield presents a lucid translation that any reader can pick up and enjoy. Also exceedingly helpful are the copious notes that follow the text. I cannot stress the notes enough: more than what the lay-reader may want, but everything a student of philosophy could ask for.