An Introduction to Plato's Republic

Rating:
Summary: an excellent book on the Republic..
Review: The Republic covers many subjects and it's not possible for someone to write a comprensive book on the Republic. Most of the book written on the Republic usually focus on few particular subjects (the most notable one is justice). An Introduction to Plato's Republic is one of the few exception. Julia Annas doesn't interpreted the Republic from one point of view. She presented the Republic as Plato intended.. In the others words, the Republic is not the book about Politic only; it is also the book of metaphysics, educations, morality. Every chapters are very thorough and extensive but simple enough to read..

Rating:
Summary: Try harder, or, bye bye lousy scholarship
Review: This book belongs to a tradition that was very popular in Oxford in the 1980s. It proceeds on the following methodology.
1. I (here: Annas) am not sure what Plato said. (fair enough)
2. Perhaps he said this: [statement] S. Anyway, that's what I think he said.
3. But S is seriously wrong/flawed/ridiculous.
4. How could Plato have been so silly as to hold S?
5. Rather, Plato should have said S" which, needless to say, is the view I hold privately.
6. Let me at length defend S", and stress again and again that this is what Plato SHOULD have said (but didn't).
The inference is faulty in terms of authorial attribution from 2. to 4. Admittedly this would not be so unpleasant if it wasn't coupled with a massive interpretative UN-charity which Annas is prone to in just about every sentence. I'm not saying you should not argue with Plato and adore him mindlessly. But in Annas' case, being condescending and unsympathethic leads to a lack of patience with the text. As a result there is not a single sentence in the forms chapter that survives textual scrutiny and stands as an interpretation of PLATO.

So, if you want to read Annas, this is the book to get. She'll give you something to think about under headings 3. and 6.
If you want to know what PLATO thought you deserve better. If you can't find better (such as Michael Frede, Myles Burnyeat, and David Sedley; secondarily Gail Fine and Terence Irwin) here's the survivor's guide to render Annas' book less repulsive: every time you encounter the phrase 'Plato thought/said/claims' in this book, substitute for it 'on my interpretation of Plato etc.' You may start with the first and last page:
"I guess everyone comes to Plato being repelled". True, on the Plato Annas gives us.
"This is a disappointing and boring end to an otherwise intruiging book [sc. Republic], but I can't help it." True if the book in question is Annas'. And, no, you could have helped it.

P.S. Today the sole surviving practitioner of the above methodological butchery on Plato and Aristotle is David Bostock (e.g. his books on Phaedo and Theaetetus). He has received the singularly appropriate rejoinder by Burnyeat (Map on Metaphysics Z): if you claim, on the basis of YOUR interpretations, that a text is nonsensical we can always tell you "go back to the text: try harder." Check out "http://www.humboldt.edu/~essays/sanfordrev.html".

Rating:
Summary: A Misguided Mish-Mash of Academic Conceit.
Review: This book is profoundly flawed. The author is oblivious to the implications of her admitted license. For instance, she uses the term 'moral' while admitting that it comes from a tradition post-dating Plato ('Introduction' p.11) and uses it to smear across distictions Plato himself found necessary. Professor Annas refuses to deal with the core concepts, as core concepts specific to Plato's time and place, and substitutes them playfully with her own modern day conceits. I quote: "I shall use 'morality' for the area of practical reasoning carried on by an agent which is concerned with the best way for a person to live." Why does she need to do this? If one was to say 'the best way to live' as Plato himself does, is that not sufficent? Does the reader/student really need a professor to explain that Plato really means 'morality'?. Baffling is why so much time is spent on non-Platonic terminology. To continually butcher 'The Republic' with these artificial terms, such as 'moral', 'values', 'society', and 'state' is to assume 'we' know more than 'they' did. This is a historical prejudice , and it does an injustice to the unsuspecting reader/student. Moreover, Professor Annas seems to be obtuse to the dramatic quality of the dialogue. An educated reader of this book cannot help but think this when the author stumbles across (454d-e) of 'The Republic'- quoting Socrates "the male begets, the female gives birth." Professor Annas then evaluates the statement, "This is an admirable argument as far as it goes; for Plato has removed any possibility of treating women as inferior as a class...but the argument suffers from being too generally stated" ( 'Plato's State', ch.7,p. 182 bottom). The author goes on to give her opinion on why it is too general- i.e: her considered views on the merits of a gender equality argument- which is fine and worth reading on it's own terms, if it was offered as such, but it is not offered as such. This is suppost to be a book on 'Plato's Republic', thus the title. Ask yourself- is that true? Is the only difference between men and women that men mount, or begat, and women bear, or give birth? That is what Plato and Socrates are asking? If the author of a commentary on 'The Republic' does not take that question seriously, and goes on to sum up her interpretation on the dramatic episode as: "Plato is confused." (p. 184), how can a reader take it seriously?

Rating:
Summary: A Misguided Mish-Mash of Academic Conceit.
Review: This book is profoundly flawed. The author is oblivious to the implications of her admitted license. For instance, she uses the term 'moral' while admitting that it comes from a tradition post-dating Plato ('Introduction' p.11) and uses it to smear across distictions Plato himself found necessary. Professor Annas refuses to deal with the core concepts, as core concepts specific to Plato's time and place, and substitutes them playfully with her own modern day conceits. I quote: "I shall use 'morality' for the area of practical reasoning carried on by an agent which is concerned with the best way for a person to live." Why does she need to do this? If one was to say 'the best way to live' as Plato himself does, is that not sufficent? Does the reader/student really need a professor to explain that Plato really means 'morality'?. Baffling is why so much time is spent on non-Platonic terminology. To continually butcher 'The Republic' with these artificial terms, such as 'moral', 'values', 'society', and 'state' is to assume 'we' know more than 'they' did. This is a historical prejudice , and it does an injustice to the unsuspecting reader/student. Moreover, Professor Annas seems to be obtuse to the dramatic quality of the dialogue. An educated reader of this book cannot help but think this when the author stumbles across (454d-e) of 'The Republic'- quoting Socrates "the male begets, the female gives birth." Professor Annas then evaluates the statement, "This is an admirable argument as far as it goes; for Plato has removed any possibility of treating women as inferior as a class...but the argument suffers from being too generally stated" ( 'Plato's State', ch.7,p. 182 bottom). The author goes on to give her opinion on why it is too general- i.e: her considered views on the merits of a gender equality argument- which is fine and worth reading on it's own terms, if it was offered as such, but it is not offered as such. This is suppost to be a book on 'Plato's Republic', thus the title. Ask yourself- is that true? Is the only difference between men and women that men mount, or begat, and women bear, or give birth? That is what Plato and Socrates are asking? If the author of a commentary on 'The Republic' does not take that question seriously, and goes on to sum up her interpretation on the dramatic episode as: "Plato is confused." (p. 184), how can a reader take it seriously?

Rating:
Summary: A wonderful study of the Republic
Review: What is wonderful about this study by Julia Annas is the personal tone of her writing; her profound knowledge of ancient Greek philosophy and Plato is constantly confronted with her own views as a modern philosopher of our times, at times she admires Plato and at others she is shocked by his extremism. The only other study written this clearly is Nicholas Whites' "A Companion to Plato's Repbulic."
The only thing I miss is a discussion of the literary, theatrical aspect of the text, the question being: are all of Socrates' views in the Republic really Plato's own? Is not Socrates a mask, an actor for Plato? Julia Annas automatically ascribes Socrates' views to Plato in her study. But this is of course an option that is possible, although not shared by all scholars.