Customer Reviews

Republic (Oxford World's Classics)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Firstly I should say that this is not the best translation of the republic. Even though the book is great in itself, the translator have changed the structure of the book by dividing it in 12 books instead of 10. However, the main pro of the book are short paragraphs inside the text which help to understand the ideas of Plato. Also I don't like that the notes are after the text. I think it is better when they are on the same page as the text they refer to.

This translation is superb.

This book provokes us with questions. It challenges our assumptions. It asks questions. It also provides few answers. Don't read this thinking that you'll find the ideal government, because you won't, and as the introduction points out, it was never really the point.

Instead, read this to find out about morality. It cannot help but point a person in the right direction. I don't think it answers the question of what morality is completely, but for that matter, I can't do much better. This is one of my sources.

Clearly, I can't take much of this and apply it directly to politics. I value diversity and conflict. I think that those things help us. Truth can only be found when we seek freely in society. In short, I love democracy. That said, it is very applicable for my inner-life. If I fill my mind with garbage, that is exactly what I will give out. I need to censor the citizens of my mind or else my inner polis will be corrupted more than it is.

It's criticisms of democracy, especially the democratic mind, are particularly poignant. Read it side-by-side with Thucydides and an account of the French Revolution and find the limitations of what we take for granted.

If someone thinks they shouldn't read a book like this because they have the Bible, then they would be in error. I am a Christian, and reading the Bible usually leaves me with more questions than answers. If a person thinks that way he aren't reading the Bible, and should begin criticising his own beliefs. Start by reading Ecclesiastes, and then this, for Ecclesiastes teaches one of Socrates' main points: we know nothing, and in the end, all that matters is how we lived. Now when such a person finishes this book, he may find that you think that Paul borrowed some from this text's ideas about the Church as the Body of Christ and every person having a specific part to play through their spiritual gifts, and the Body becoming ill if any one member of the body does not act in his role. I offer such a long statement having to do with Christianity, because reading these works, and those who read them, have been undully criticized by those who have not read them.

It is simply that morality is not an exclusive thing. A Christian should realize that the Bible assumes that much of what is moral can be plainly known. To neglect what has been said elsewhere is to suffer from a myopic vision of morality. This book will make a person ask questions, and that is its goal. It is not all compatable, but some is. Please do not dismiss it just because one is a Christian. I am, and I greatly enjoy Plato's works.

I'm wrapping up a semester of teaching this translation of Republic, and I've had few complaints. Waterfield's editorial hand is visible, but that in itself, in the hands of a competent teacher, leads to good discussions above and beyond Plato's ideas.

With regards to Plato's masterwork, there's no good place to start save reading it for oneself. Plato is dead wrong in places (with regards to poetry and marriage just to get rolling), but his genius is that he's wrong as an idealist philosopher, encouraging readers to assert and refine their own ideals as counter-arguments. In other words, in order to refute Plato, one must out-Plato Plato.

Deconstruction is fine for deconstructionists, but a good discussion of this juggernaut of ancient thought is the life for me.

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.

Waterfield's translation of Plato's classic is excellent. What is most notable here, in my opinion, is his decision to translate Plato's "dikaion" as "morality" rather than "justice". This makes perfect sense: in Aristotle, justice is the virtue (in fact the sum of all other virtues) of our dealings with others, while other virtues are defined as they contribute to individual well being. Greek "justice" is not therefore poitical, as we use the term "justice," rather, it is much more like what we call "morality". Waterfield's choice to fly in the face of convention here is also justified by his contention that the political theory of the REPUBLIC cannot be taken seriously. In fact, Waterfield seems to consider the REPUBLIC to contain much more allegory than that of the Cave, Sun, and Er myths. The whole political schema, he suggests is an allegory of the self. In all, this is a nice translation, highly readable, and very reasonably priced.

This is not a comment on the substance of the Republic, which I would not presume to attempt here. I used this translation in a course and had many comments from students on how modern-sounding it seemed to them. (I think this was meant in a complimentary sense.) It is a very fine translation, superior to Cornford and Grube in my opinion. There is an excellent long introduction by the translator, and plenty of helpful notes. With few exceptions the translation is faithful to the original Greek. On the minus side, the type is too small, and the notes are placed at the end rather than in the body of the text, an unnecessary inconvenience. Also, references to other of Plato's works are sparing, which somewhat limits its usefulness as a research resource. But the positives of this book are overwhelming. This is definitely the translation of choice for readers of the Republic.

This translation is superb.

This book provokes us with questions. It challenges our assumptions. It asks questions. It also provides few answers. Don't read this thinking that you'll find the ideal government, because you won't, and as the introduction points out, it was never really the point.

Instead, read this to find out about morality. It cannot help but point a person in the right direction. I don't think it answers the question of what morality is completely, but for that matter, I can't do much better. This is one of my sources.

Clearly, I can't take much of this and apply it directly to politics. I value diversity and conflict. I think that those things help us. Truth can only be found when we seek freely in society. In short, I love democracy. That said, it is very applicable for my inner-life. If I fill my mind with garbage, that is exactly what I will give out. I need to censor the citizens of my mind or else my inner polis will be corrupted more than it is.

It's criticisms of democracy, especially the democratic mind, are particularly poignant. Read it side-by-side with Thucydides and an account of the French Revolution and find the limitations of what we take for granted.

If someone thinks they shouldn't read a book like this because they have the Bible, then they would be in error. I am a Christian, and reading the Bible usually leaves me with more questions than answers. If a person thinks that way he aren't reading the Bible, and should begin criticising his own beliefs. Start by reading Ecclesiastes, and then this, for Ecclesiastes teaches one of Socrates' main points: we know nothing, and in the end, all that matters is how we lived. Now when such a person finishes this book, he may find that you think that Paul borrowed some from this text's ideas about the Church as the Body of Christ and every person having a specific part to play through their spiritual gifts, and the Body becoming ill if any one member of the body does not act in his role. I offer such a long statement having to do with Christianity, because reading these works, and those who read them, have been undully criticized by those who have not read them.

It is simply that morality is not an exclusive thing. A Christian should realize that the Bible assumes that much of what is moral can be plainly known. To neglect what has been said elsewhere is to suffer from a myopic vision of morality. This book will make a person ask questions, and that is its goal. It is not all compatable, but some is. Please do not dismiss it just because one is a Christian. I am, and I greatly enjoy Plato's works.

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.

the other reviewer gave this book a 9 and recommended it because it is worth reading. i am a bit surprised. perhaps his standard is high, but as far as i'm concerned, books don't get better than this, not even those written by plato himself. the republic poses the greatest challenge to almost all of the facile assumptions common among the educated today. it demands the closest reading and rewards the patient reader nothing, other an emerging ability to think, an activity that is becoming increasingly rare, buried by a great deal of post-modern sophistry.This translation is one of the more faithful ones, preserving plato's thought while striving to be readable. it should provide an inviting introduction for the beginner.

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.