The Republic

Rating:
Summary: Readable, well-annotated, makes Plato approachable
Review: "If an ass peers into a book, do not expect a saint to peer out." (Augustine) If Lee had biased his choice of words, or his explanatory notes toward any one interpretation of this complex work, then he would have been as foolish as most of the reviewers posting polemics here.

The strength of this rendering is that Lee is sufficiently accurate and balanced in his approach to allow for reasonable debate even among first-time readers. He -- for the most part --makes Plato approachable, and opens the door to the many issues raised by this book.

Lee does a good job of presenting oft-misconstrued arguments, noting important shades of difference between the English words he has chosen and the original Greek, pointing out ambiguities of meaning, and important issues that may not be apparent to a modern reader. Lee also handles the poetic passages with sufficient grace that many of my own students have found them inspiring.

Whether or not you like Plato, Lee has done his job, and for the most part lets the work speak for itself.


Rating:
Summary: Not even a footnote to the footnotes
Review: According to Whitehead all of Western philosophy is a 'footnote to Plato' As the heart of Plato is in the Republic it might be said that all of Western Philosophy is a footnote to the Republic. And that being the case it seems ridiculous to try and do anything more here than make a minor footnote to a footnote. The point as I understand it though of Whitehead is that if you wish to understand the basic terms and questions upon which the debates of the philosophical tradition are carried out you should know this work.
I will make no attempt to summarize or to condense the many questions including the central one of the meaning of Justice and a Just Society which are at the heart of this work.
I will just write down a few impressions, a few memories from the reading which took place many years ago .The first is that the work is conducted by a method of dialogue, what is called the 'maieutic ' method in which the philosopher Socrates the main character of the dialogues and Plato's great teacher acts as a 'mid-wife' bringing out the ' inherent truths ' in the mind of man through talking to others. It is all there in us pre- existent according to this view and the Truth simply needs to be brought out.
This Truth however has a baffling meaning in the Central Myth of the Republic. This is the Myth of the Cave . The philosopher descends into the Cave and seeks in isolation to know the Ultimate Truth. But what he sees are the shadows of the shadows the fleeting images of sense which can hint at but not really convey ultimately the final truth. And the final truth in Plato's system and world is the Impersonal Abstract Idea which in turn is constructed of all other Ideas. It is as if we arrive finally at One but this one is not the personal G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but truly a God of the Philosophers somehow beyond and containing us all.
At another level this is the great Political guide book of the Western world, and in Karl Popper's accusation the real blueprint for Totalitarianism and dictatorship. The three- part society depicted here is ruled in the end by the Philosopher- King elite, the know-it- alls who keep order by keeping everyone else in order. Liberal democracy is not Plato's final station for the Evolution of the Idea.
All in all this is a too rich, too suggestive too meaningful work to write about seriously in a review like this. This work pervades the whole philosophical tradition that follows from Aristotle and through the neo- Platonists and on down to our own day.
As for the dialogues and the figure of Socrates and Plato's relation to his own teacher these also are large questions endlessly explored and to be explored.
Again who reads this work carefully has a real clue as to the nature of Western Philosophy. But who reads only this work knows Philosophy without the religious and ethical components the Biblical Literature will supply.


Rating:
Summary: An average guy's take.
Review: Ok, I'm certainly not smart enough to give a "real" review of Plato's Republic, i.e., the kind that really sums up the book and then finds some tiny-but-oh-so-significant error in Grube's translation from the Greek. But, for what it is worth, here is my take:

First, if you expect to find really convincing arguments in Plato's republic, forget about it. Seriously, I'm not very smart, but even I was annoyed by all the holes in Socrates' reasoning. No wonder they offered him the cup.

Second, and likewise, if you expect to find some really cool "Socratic" method of reasoning, you better forget that too. Socrates' method is basically just to state his own opinions as a series of leading questions, and then have some yes-man say "yes." Real helpful, huh?

Third, if you want some really interesting insights, there are some to be found. However, when Plato would make a good point, I'd often experience de ja vu, like I'd already heard it somewhere else before. Example: One of Socrates' buddies suggests that the only reason people yelp against injustice is that they are too powerless to get away with being unjust themselves. Interesting, huh? But it sounds a lot like Nietsche's whole slave morality deal, doesn't it? Of course, I know that Nietsche lived long after Plato, and that any similarity of ideas is probably due to Plato's influence, and not vice versa. But that doesn't change the fact that, as a simple-minded reader, I prefer to hear things that I haven't heard before.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, don't come to Plato if you are just looking for "planks" to include in your modern, "liberal" worldview. The Republic is full of stuff that would tempt the ACLU to hold a book-burning. For example, at one point, Socrates is complaining about how his contemporaries misuse medicine. But when he talks about how things would work in HIS ideal city, he says that people "whose bodies are naturally unhealthy" should be left to "die of their own accord," meaning without any medicine at all. He also suggests that the lives of those who are "by nature sick and licentious" should not be considered "profitable either to themselves or to anyone else." "Medicine isn't intended for such people and they shouldn't be treated, not even if they're richer than Midas." That's awesome, Plato. Talk about the "final solution" for rising health care costs!

Finally, and notwithstanding any of that stuff, I guess I'd have to say I'm glad I read the Republic. It was actually a fairly easy read, and now I can say I did it. Also, the next time George Will or some other smarty-type makes a veiled reference to the Republic, I'll have at least a one-in-three chance of knowing what the hell they're saying. Finally, and most importantly, one of these days, the word "Plato" on my bookshelf is gonna fool somebody into thinking I'm smart! Woo hoo! If that's not reason for five stars, what is?!?

Rating:
Summary: THIS IS THE SAME DUDE IN BILL AND TED!!!!!
Review: DUDE LIKE I SAW THIS THING AT LIKE THE MALL AND I KNEW IT WOULD BE TOTALLY AWESOME BECAUSE HE WAS COOLER THAN ALL THE REST(LIKE THE JOAN OF ARK CHICK, BABRAHAM LINCOLN(HAHA),THAT DUDE WHO ATE ALL THAT CHICKEN,BEETHOVEN,BUT BILLY WAS A CLOSE SECOND) IT WAS AWESOME. AND LIKE YOU KNOW THE WAY THAT LIKE PEOPLE SAY YOU LIKE A BOOK WHEN YOU READ IT FAST WELL I KNEW I LIKED IT WHEN IT ONLY TOOK ME THREE YEARS TO READ IT!!!!! P.S. CHECK OUT LED ZEPPELIN:IV(ZOSO) IF YOU LIKED IT.

LOVE DUDES,
THE JONES!

Rating:
Summary: The Republic - 5stars, Dover Thrift - 0stars
Review: Translation is key when buying a book like this. The Republic is a must read for anyone and everyone, but not Dover Thrift.
The translator Allan Bloom has served me well for the past 5 years.

Rating:
Summary: amazing. a must read for everyone
Review: 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.