Customer Reviews

The Republic (Non Fiction)

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I won't waste time trying to summarize Plato's "The Republic". Most people (I would guess nine out of ten) who have read this colussus of classical philosophy, read it because they were forced to by their college instructors. This is unfortunate because "The Republic" is a compelling and enduring philosophy of how life should be lived, how justice should be approached, and how leaders should lead.

What recommends this book, really, is the bargain price: under five bucks. As one of those college instructors who makes their students read this, I always recommend this edition. Sterling and Scott's translation is as good as anyone else's, so why not save my students a few bucks? And, if you're one of those one out of ten who is considering reading this on your own, you've only got five bucks to lose, but an awful lot of rewarding reading to gain!

Rocco Dormarunno

College of New Rochelle

I got in to this book after reading E. Robert Morse's Justice and Equality and hearing about the parallels and I was pleasantly surprised. The translation wasn't a very difficult read and there are a lot of valid ideas that are still meaningful today. The wide scope of topics prevents boredom and the read is quick. I was interested in the opening questions- what is Justice and why should we be just? If one can gain material things and social prominence not being just and moreover being unjust, why do it? His answers aren't always filled with perspective, but they do open one's mind. Another good book along these lines is Essays by Michel de Montaigne which is an overview of life from a humanist's perspective.

F. M. Cornford is possessed of the rare distinction among translator's of being not only a philologist but a celebrated historian and a deeply philosophical scholar. His English translations of Plato are unparalleled if only because he understands the subject matter better than any historian, and understands the language better than any philosopher. His work is consistently above par.

An eminently readable edition of a classic and essential text.

Plato and Socrates were refering to the Soul in their work. Not to a literal Ruling Class or Soldierly Class. This is why the book still has value and freshness today. They're explicit about it, too. (An early mention in Bloom: "...First we'll investigate what justice is like in the cities. Then, we'll also go on to consider it in indivdiuals, considering the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler." / 369a.) In no way do they mean to suggest totalitarianism on earth, but that the Soul must develop a Ruling Element. It's astonishing how so many take spiritual work in a literal sense. The book only was written as a guide to developing the Soul. The ancients in particular worked from the inside out. Only confused modern minds could take the huge ALLEGORY of this great work as a literal recipe for a society on earth (then knock it as being communist, ant-like, scary or whatever). And it is as funny, lively, clever and compelling as anything written today. Well, more so, of course. Talk about ant-like: this work easily beats or at least informs the best of today's work. I suppose it's only natural that ants misunderstand their view of giants. They should work harder, not at being clever, but at getting a better view. It's not that hard! The Republic inspires as vividly as when it was written: the ultimate indicator of an eternal classic.

This translation of Plato's Republic is very easy to read and understandable. As someone who needed to read this book quickly for a class, I found this translation to be much more accessible than other translations I've encountered.

This is more of a review of the translation, as opposed to the text itself. The Republic is a classic, and like Shakespeare, or the Mona Lisa, needs no review or comment. This is not to say that I agree with everything Socrates-Plato says, but that this book lifts you higher, weather you agree or disagree.

Tom Griffith deserves an award for rendering a bouncy translation that makes the text come alive. This translation ranks among my favorites. Its strength is that it renders the Greek into a colloquial, conversational English, as opposed to the stiff and ossified academic dronings that make higher education such a joy!

He follows the pattern set by Seamus Heany ("Beowulf), and J. B. Phillips ("The New Testament in Modern English"), where the language illuminates the text, and engages your mind. Too often, the translators' end product-the language-gets in the way of the ideas and joys of the text. I was able to plow through this book in a fortnight because the language flowed so well.

I wish we could get more translators to get the gift of tongues, and to render these classic texts into the tongue of angels!

The Cornford translation of Plato is still one of the standards, even though other translations might well be better in this age. To get to the point: Socrates' greatest student was Plato. In "The Republic," Plato, through the voice of Socrates, provided the keenest metaphor to describe his understanding of the problem cod defining "reality." His allegory of the cave serves as the takeoff point. Socrates describes the situation to Glaucon thus:

[Socrates]: Imagine the condition of men living in a sort of cavernous chamber underground, with an entrance open to the light and a long passage all down the cave. Here they have been from childhood, chained by the leg and also by the neck, so that they cannot move and can see only what is in front of them, because the chains will not let them turn their heads. At some distance higher up is the light of a fire burning behind them; and between the prisoners and the fire is a track with a parapet built along it, like a screen at a puppet-show, which hides the performers while they show their puppets over the top. . .

Now behind this parapet imagine persons carrying along various artificial objects,

including figures of men and animals in wood or stone or other materials, which project

above the parapet. Naturally, some of the persons will be talking, others silent.

[Glaucon]: It is a strange picture. . .and a strange sort of prisoners.

[Socrates]: Like ourselves. . .; for in the first place prisoners so confined would have seen nothing of themselves or one another, except the shadows thrown by the firelight on the wall of the cave facing them, would they?. . .And they would have seen as little of the objects carried past. . .Now, if they could talk to one another, would they not suppose that their words referred only to those passing shadows which they saw?

[Glaucon]: Necessarily.

[Socrates]: And suppose their prison had an echo from the wall facing them? When one of the people crossing behind them spoke, they could only suppose that the sound came from the shadow passing before their eyes. . .In every way, then, such prisoners would recognize as reality nothing but the shadows of those artificial objects.

Next, Plato has Socrates examine what happens if someone is taken from the cave out into the light of day. This person then comes to understand that all is illusion and shadows in the cave--whereas earlier that person had defined the images as reality. In this sense, through education, one could come to see reality and escape the confines of the cave. And when that person would re-enter the cave, he would realize the nature if illusions and be able to try to illuminate with his (or her) wisdom the lives of the people in the cave. This, of course, would be difficult since the denizens of that dark region would not themselves have directly experienced the light of knowledge.

Who is best able to see what is outside of the cave? The philosophers, of course. Plato believes that there are absolutes, "forms," out there in the "real world." Circles that we humans craft can never equal the ideal type "out there," what we might call "circularity." There is an abstract idea of circularity, the perfect circle, the essence of circleness. This is the truth of the object. Only through training can a person begin to understand and appreciate these forms, these ideal types. Only those whose passion and talent is the pursuit of knowledge and who can come to possess wisdom are able to see these "forms." Only then can the subject properly "see" the object, in this case circularity. Note, in contrast, the arguments by the Sophists that the subject is incapable of properly perceiving and understanding reality--even if there is a reality to be apprehended!

And, in his metaphor of gold, silver, and bronze, Plato makes this even more explicit. Each person, he claims, is dominated by one of three elements--appetite (bronze), courage (silver), and wisdom (gold). It is in our nature at birth which one of these characterizes each of us. Only those whose central core is gold can ever hope to see the forms and understand the absolute truth that exists. The rest are, in effect, condemned to a life in the cave. Education is needed to take the raw material within a person and shape that individual's capacity to come to see truth, to apprehend the forms or ideal types.

In the end, then, only a few can ever come to know reality. And it takes them much of their lives before they are adequately enough trained to accomplish this Olympian goal. It is unsurprising, of course, that Plato argues that these few, these philosopher-kings (or queens, since he accepts that women may be capable of these same feats of intellectual insight), should also become the rulers of the ideal society. That is the nature of his "Republic."

This is one of the great works of political philosophy. Its assumption that there is a "special class" suited to rule is open to question. His elitism will not sit well with many readers. The belief that humans can apprehend objective reality is also open to question. His sense that individuals are predestined to serve as "producers," "auxiliaries," or "philosopher kings/queens" (yes, he felt that women might become leaders, an unusual conclusion for the time) will not convince many contemporary readers. However, this is one of the standard translations and provides a credible entrée to one of Plato's greatest works.

Plato's famed Republic is that idyllic land where philosophical principles have re-formed human nature into something grander than ourselves. The fundament that underlies this golden state is an inquiry into the nature of justice, which Plato embodies in the Guardians of this state. They are the elite, a caste apart within the larger commercial society, in which "mean employments and manual arts are a reproach." They lack any of the normal impulses that reward a citizen with love, family, and material comfort. Instead, they are a communalist group, in which even monogamy is too restrictive for the laws under which this elite must live. Eugenic officers put the best to the best to improve the breed, with the eternal goal of elevating this sub-race of gaurdians. Men who distinguish themselves, usually in war, are honored with their pick of the fillies, the only material reward they are allowed. Plato rarely mentions women except at the end of a discussion, with a phrase like, "Oh, yeah, and women too." Presumably, the highest reward for a woman's service is her own say in the choice of stud.

These Guardians, and this society as a whole, are maintained on a rigidly censored information stream. It is subject to broad blacklists, including whole rhythms of music, forms of worship, and essentially all of visual art. In fact, the latter section of this book includes a diatribe against representative art, abstract being unknown. Ivins, in his history of print and the spread of knowledge, claims that the Greeks' condemnation of visual art held back Western civilization for a millenium. They could have invented block printing, except that slave-copied manuscripts were so convenient, and could have created accurate image reproductions, except that philosophical purity raises one above the need to deal with actual objects in the physical world. Instead, knowledge lay locked in medieval scriptoria until Gutenberg and his motley crew set it free.

My two biggest problems with The Republic, however, lie in its first and last sections. The first is a condensed example of more techniques of invalid reason than I have names for. Plato accepts the conclusion as premise, creates false dichotomies, terms the irrelevant as opposite, and generally displays every foul punch and groin kick of disputation that now grace our headlines. The student of debate where viciousness dominates reason must study these first fifty pages.

The last section, of course, is the one in which Plato proposes the Noble Philosopher as the grand lord of his republic. These other-wordly beings would live in their cloister of Truth, occasionally to descend from their Empyrean heights to grace us with more of their dicta regarding the proper functioning of the world. One can only assume that Plato would have taken that burden upon himself.

//wiredweird

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.

This version is so far the nicest I have seen, if you don't want to spend the extra five dollar on the Management Laboratory Press version. But this one is great aswell!