Customer Reviews

The Republic: The Complete and Unabridged Jowett Translation

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

 

 

Republic by Plato complete and unabridged Jowett Translation about the classic work on the ideal commonwealth which starts out as an inquiry into the meaning of justice and turns into an examination of the Just Man or Just State.

This translation is the truist translation yet... it captures Plato for Plato as he writes as Socrates who questions to get answers. I found this writing to be part of individual life as each performs his appropriate function as "the world goes around," with time being eternity.

This book and this particular translation seems to be the best as Jowett knows his Plato, very straight forward and easily understood as eternal reason.

I read Plato's Republic for a graduate philosophy class. I paid close attention to Plato's thesis of courage in his Republic, which I expound below. I found G. M. A. Grubb's translation to be the best of several I read.

Plato's project in the Republic is to form the "perfect" society. "Reason allows us to live for something." Through reason we set goals and organize our lives around achieving goals. Plato argues that the government's duty to citizens is to provide justice, and educate citizens both men and women. The state's social structure stood for justice and was divided into three groups. Rulers- those trained to use reason and posses wisdom. Guardians/ Soldiers have courage/spirit. Artisans have moderation of appetites. Plato's ideal ruler, the "Philosopher King," should be 50 years old with 15 years of government experience and should have studied science and philosophy. The ruler must show a mastery of Arete = excellence vs. akrasia= weakening of will, or no self-control. The ruler should think logically not emotionally. In the Republic to insure excellent people Plato advocated selective breeding of excellent unmarried people who lived in communes, who did not own property.

Plato describes five types of government in the Republic:

1. Aristocracy- Plato considered this the best form of government; aristocracy embodies wisdom of the philosopher king.
2. Timocracy- military government embodies virtues of honor and courage.
3. Oligarchy- rule by a rich elite, their vice is greed, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
4. Democracy- mob rule, and chaos, it represents akrasia people are slaves of their desires and have little self-control.
5. Tyranny- this is the worst form of government. The vice is selfishness, one power crazed person in control.

Plato's purpose in the Republic is not to perfect the character of people as an end but only as a means to an end. Plato's aim has a definite effect on his definition of courage. I find this is especially the case when exploring his ideas on how to educate the Guardians of the city to act courageously. Plato's goal is to match a person's character disposition to a job they are naturally inclined to perform in the city. Once he [Plato] has introduced the city in 369 b-d, he immediately advances the thesis, which is to dominate the rest of the Republic, that the needs of its inhabitants can best be met if each person in it performs that single task, and that single task alone, for which he is naturally suited.

With this view of human nature in mind, in Plato's model society, he divides the citizens into three classes. Rulers from whom the "philosopher king," will be selected, Guardians who are soldiers to protect the state, and the rest of the citizens classified as Artisans This division of citizens precipitates a discussion by Plato on the four virtues that these citizens will bring to the state. In the history of philosophy this becomes known as the "four cardinal virtues"; wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. With this introduction of courage as a virtue, Plato takes another crack at defining courage. What is also important to observe is that he introduces a new element, that of education, in his definition of courage that was absent from his early dialogue Laches.

Plato espouses the idea in the Republic that the Guardians need to possess certain natural qualities; such as strength, speed, and courage. It seems odd that Plato classifies courage as a natural quality possessed by certain people. This automatically presupposes that not all people can practice the virtue of courage. Plato's successor Aristotle, will argue against this notion in his EN. In addition, Plato argues that in order for people to be courageous they must also have an aggressive thumos [passion], which makes both people and animals fearless and determined. Plato fears that the Guardians could be susceptible to using their passion of aggressiveness against there own people. Therefore, he counsels that the Guardians who naturally possess aggressiveness have to also naturally possess the opposite characteristic of gentleness as well, so that their aggressiveness will only be used against the enemy and not their own citizenry.

This dialogue is significant in that it helps to flesh out Plato's notion of what ultimately makes a person courageous. First, Plato argues that the goal of education, which he compares to a sheepdog, is to watch over the Guardians; thus, with the proper education he believes the proper balance between exciting their aggressiveness and subduing it in the Guardians can be achieved. Second, Plato believes that if aggressiveness is properly excited by physical training, then the Guardian will be courageous. If overly excited they will be like a wild beast devoid of grace and will become ignorant. Finally, Plato argues in his education section of the Republic, that to counter the possibility of a Guardian developing an over excited passion of aggressiveness, it is necessary to teach the Guardians literature and music during the same time they undergo physical training.

Thus, Plato hopes this balanced approach to educating the Guardians will then lead to courage being a controlled and calm act of endurance in battle, instead of a foolhardy lust for blood letting and an emotional reaction to war. Not only does Plato spend a significant amount of time advocating for the tools necessary to subdue the passions of the Guardians in book three of the Republic, but another important point in Plato's philosophy to consider is that since he believes that a Guardian's aggressiveness is influenced by literature he is very concerned by what type of literature is taught to them as well. Plato is very concerned that the archetypical heroic warrior Achilles, as depicted in Homer's epic poem the Iliad along with those depicted in Greek tragedies performed on stage, are bad examples for the Guardians to emulate. Consequently, Plato advises that heroes of Greek literature should be depicted as thoughtfully courageous and in control of their anger and physically resilient warriors. Thus, Plato seems to be using the term andreia [courage] to cover (at the least) both courage proper, which can only exist in some kind of unity with the other virtues, and raw mettle or aggressiveness, which can exist in conjunction with various vices. Plato in book four of the Republic does move on from his study of thumos as the prime motivating force to act courageously, to actually defining the virtue of courage. Plato defines courage as a person's ability to subdue their aggressiveness by the orders of their reason in regards to what they should be fearful of regardless of their own feelings of pain or pleasure. Plato's expounded definition of the virtue of courage is that a courageous act is an amalgamation of a person's natural passion of aggressiveness and properly educated rational beliefs over what is worthy regarding the possibility of losing their life or limb over.

In Benjamin Jowett's easy to read and enjoyable translation of Plato's most famous dialogue you will find the philosopher Socrates delivering one of his most compelling yet revolutionary arguments.

And even though we live in the modern era with its vast technological advancements this philosophical colloquy is still being, mulled over in most high schools and college classes around the world.
So, how does antiquity such as this stand up to the ravages of time and compels us to re-examine who we are, where we're going, and what our political persuasions ought to be.

Plato's student/protégé Aristotle stated, "The man who is truly a statesman is thought to be chiefly occupied with virtue; he wants to make the citizens good and obedient to the law." He also stated, "We see that every state is a sort of partnership, and that every partnership is formed in order to attain some good. After all, it is universally true that people do act with a view to obtaining what they think [is] good for them. Clearly, then, all partnerships have some good as their objective, and the highest, most authentic good is the objective of the most authentic of all partnerships, the one that includes all others. This is the state; political partnership." (Aristotle's statement can be found in "The Politics Book One".)
Moreover, this syllogism that Aristotle contemplates is pretty much the standard paradigm or foundation that a Republican government adheres to, though not everyone will agree with his viewpoint. But you must realize that it's the most altruistic response insofar as avoiding totalitarianism.
Nonetheless, in a true Republic the government and the citizens must work in unison to achieve success. This is the syllogistic argument Socrates didactically tries to demonstrate to the Auditors involved in the dialogue.
Furthermore, I believe Socrates' arguments had a heavy influence over Aristotle's political views.
(For a brief introduction to Aristotle I suggest reading "The Philosophy Of Aristotle" translated by J.L Creed and A. E. Ward.)

During Socrates and the Auditors' dialectical exchange, Socrates makes many valid points such as "the democratical man grows out of the oligarchial," also he interjects the axiom that democracies eventually become tyrannies because the definition of a democracy is "majority rule," which unequivocally means the minority will be disenfranchised in one form or the other. But alas, not everyone is in agreement with Socrates' conclusions.

One of the Auditors is named Thrasymachus who happens to be the Sean Hannity of his day. Thrasymachus made the animadversion "that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger." He then demands Socrates to explain why this omnipotent notion doesn't hold apposite when it's clear throughout history that this indeed is the truism. So, with his flair for answering a question with a question, Socrates attempts to reason with this brazen individual and the rest of the Auditors.

The way I reasoned it, Thrasymachus' position on the matter was more iniquitously pragmatic.
A Case in point: Thrasymachus states, ""the just is always the loser in comparison with the unjust. First of all, in private contracts: wherever the unjust is the partner of the just you will find that, when the partnership is dissolved, the unjust man has always more and the just less. Secondly, in their dealings with the State: when there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income; and when there is anything to be received the one gains nothing and the other much." This was one of the examples that Thrasymachus used to argue his point, which is in direct opposition to what Aristotle asserted years later. Moreover, it's plain to see that Niccolò Machiavelli used Thrasymachus' ideology as the foundation for his philosophical works such as the "Prince."
Moreover, Socrates' fails to convince Thrasymachus of his (so-called) exiguous folly, but he now has to convince the rest of the Auditors that his philosophical perspective is isentropically illogical.
In the end of the dialogue Socrates weighs in the dichotomy of good and evil, that virtue is better than immorality; fore justice breeds harmony and that everyone shouldn't be at varianced to this concept.

I also found it interesting that Socrates was a feminist, which was an extremely radical concept for the 5th century BCE. Socrates believed that women should have the same amiable rights as men. This was a philosopher who was way ahead of his time and after reading this pedagogical diatribe against mankind's reactionary nature......well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Socrates was sentenced to die by drinking hemlock.

After reading this I pondered that Socrates' syllogistic remonstration for a Republican paradigm was convincing, and perspicuous, but idealistically flawed because for his aspiration to become reality all political persuasions would have to be absolute, and unfortunately that isn't realistic.

This is a 5 star read that everyone should engage in because it will help you ascertain human nature, government, and universal ideologies.