Customer Reviews

The Republic (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Plato's Republic is the fount from which nearly all Western thought flows. Pretty much everything written in that tradition either borrows from Plato or refutes him, and the Republic articulates his philosophies more fully than any of his other works(although the Timaeus is more mature and the Symposium is an amazing discussion on a single point). I must disagree with both of the main camps on this site; it is neither just a work of political philosophy NOR just a work of moral psychology(how to order your mind). Plato thought that all things should reflect the ultimate good, so that the ideal society would be ordered in the exact same way that the ideal human being would be. Thus, every part of one's psyche would correspond to a part of society(it's a microcosm!), and the "higher" parts of one's mind would be mirrored in the Guardians, the "higher" parts of society.

With that said, it is easy to see that the Republic proposes many things that disgust most modern human beings: censorship for political stability, ostracism of those with "weak" (read: human, sensitive, or some equivalent) emotions, killing young children, government regulation of sexual activity, and such. Even when Plato tries to give women equal rights, an _extremely_ radical idea in Ancient Greece, his ancient prejudices show up when he calls them "equal but weaker in all ways(morally, intellectually, and physically)".

Despite all of its shortcomings, the Republic was the work that singlehandedly separated the real from the ideal in Western civilization, and it also defined the kinds of questions that Western philosophers would try to answer until the 20th century. Pick up a book of Western philosophy at random, and I guarantee you that some issue introduced in the Republic will hit you within the first five pages. Even the Communist Manifesto rips off his discourse on women and his notion of work defining human beings. The Republic was the first work of real philosophy in the conversation of ideals that continues to this very day in fields as diverse as politics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and religion. (PS: If you think Plato's an idealistic fool, read Aristotle. So did he.)

Sir Desmond Lee's second edition of this, the translation of Plato's Republic, misses the mark it seeks to strike. By using too much contemporary (for the 1970's) English, we lose the feel for what Plato was actually trying to say. This translation would have read much better had it followed the original text more faithfully. This, though, is one of the pitfalls of writing for Penguin: if it's a translated work, it better sound modern--no matter that it was written two millenia ago.

But The Republic itself? Stunningly simple. Beautifully wrought. Criticized as a bone thrown to totalitarianism, this work still remains the core of all modern political, social and philosophical thought. Most powerful is the opening Book, where Socrates definitively refutes the common herd's definition of justice. The masterful reasoning he employs to demolish Thrasymachus's argument that justice is that which is in the interest of the stronger party will enlighten as well as refresh: might does not make right, then or now. The later Books pack comparatively less punch, but nonetheless will give any thoughtful person plenty to sink his teeth into. The philosophical section on the Line, the Sun and the Cave cannot be understood without supplemental reading, as they form an integral part of Plato's theory of Forms, an idea he never fleshed out concretely in any one tract. Modern philosophy departments have consigned this book to the trash heap, to which the objective reader can only say this: If The Republic is trash, then our own generation's literary legacy looks bleak indeed.

It has been said that all philosophic work of the past 2400 years stands as footnotes to Plato's writings. 'Do the ends justify the means? What is justice? Whom does it serve? Who should serve as its guardians? Is it absolute or relative?'
Plato's protagonist is his old teacher, Socrates. The arguments are presented as dialogues and thus embody a literary aspect different from many, although certainly not all, subsequent philosophical writings. His object is "no trivial question, but the manner in which a man ought to live." The answers are seen to point to the manner in which a utopian society should be operated.
As a storied mountain calls to a climber from afar, Plato calls to the student of the art of thinking. This is why we read Plato, for the "neo-Platonists" -- Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Whitehead, Gödel, and others -- have certainly propounded improved philosophy. But it is Plato on whom they improve. Most thinkers (perhaps especially most mathematicians and logicians) yet agree with Plato, at least insofar as his understanding of "form" -- often adapted or restated as: ideas / perfection / consciousness / mind / or, 'the thing in itself'.
Plato's realm of [what he calls] "forms" acknowledges the mysterious, yet logically necessary, existence of non-material reality. In Republic he views this as the realm of reference in constructing his understanding of an ideal society. We find in the work of subsequent thinkers (and within Plato's Republic as well) that this non-material reality is perhaps more easily recognized in purer considerations of reason, aesthetics, mathematics, music, love, spiritual experience, and ultimately in consciousness itself, than in idealized human social institutions. Mathematics, for example, although readily practiced in material ways, is not itself material. Thus the understanding of the purity of reason as opposed to the synthetic (and uncertain) nature of empiricism, arises from the work of Plato (and is particularly well developed in Descartes' existentialism).
Modern readers should rightly find that Plato regards the State too highly; in pursuit of an ideal State his supposedly improved citizen is highly restricted and censored. His "utopian" citizens are automatons, bred by the State; unsanctioned infants are "disposed of." Where his ideas are wrongly developed, they are in fact important ideas, i.e., they are issues deserving serious examination. Should the ruling class be restricted to philosophers? Plato says yes, that wisdom and intellectual insight are more desirable in leaders than are either birthright or popularity. Of course we, in the democratic West, tend to see this idea as totalitarianism, but it remains an interesting argument.
Although the product of polytheistic culture, Plato is leery of the tangled accounts of the gods received from the poets, Homer, Hesiod, etc. His view of the divine -- that "the chief good" has one eternal, unchanging and surpassingly superior form -- which he also calls "Providence", hints strongly of the common ground which was to emerge between neo-Platonism and monotheism. Like Plato's proverbial cave dwellers, we perceive this transcendent entity through poorly understood "shadows" of the actual truth. Beside its philosophical, literary, political, and theological aspects, Republic is also important as a treatise on psychology, in fact the science of mind seems to have progressed very little beyond Plato's insights. Books 5-7 are particularly fascinating.

There probably isn't much I can add in a scholarly vein to what people have already said about Plato. So I thought I would make a few personal observations from the standpoint of a somewhat philosophically literate, 21st century man who is reading such an august classic in middle age.

I came to this book with more of a background in modern epistemology and the philosophy of science than in classical philosophy. So political philosophy isn't exactly my strong suit, but nevertheless I found the book interesting reading in a way I hadn't really thought of before.

Actually, I had read portions of this book 20 years ago when I was a young student first studying philosophy, and I have to say, there is something to be said for having a more mature outlook in approaching such a venerable work. At the time I thought political philosophy pretty dull stuff, and besides, I felt there was no real way to answer any of the important political questions that get debated here, despite the easy way Socrates disposes of everybody else's half-baked opinions and theories.

The fact is, if you move ahead 2400 years and read something like Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies," an advanced modern work, you can see how much, or how little, political philosophy has progressed in the last 24 centuries.

Well, that may be true, but at least with this book you know where it basically all started. The best way to decide this issue is to read the book and decide for yourself.

Although entitled "The Republic," this society isn't like any republic you've probably ever read about. Plato proposes an ant-like communism where there is no private ownership of property, philosophers are kings, kings are philosophers, people cultivate physical, moral, and ethical qualities, and the idea of the good takes the place of political and social virtues.

Another odd facet is that the bravest citizens are permitted more wives than those less brave in battle. And then there is the infamous proposition that all poets and artists are to be banished since they are harmful purveyors of false illusions.

I find the Socratic method as a way of moving along the dialogue between the participants sort of interesting, and it is certainly an effective device. However, none of these people, even the Sophist Thrasymachus, are really Socrates' intellectual equal, so he really doesn't have much competition here.

If ancient Athens disproportionately had so many towering intellects, relative to its small population (about 20,000 people, most of whom were slaves anyway), you'd think they would show up in Plato's dialogues more. But all we seem to get are second-raters who are really no match for the clever Socrates.

Yet I would say this is still a great book. Classical scholars say there are more perfect, less flawed dialogues than Plato's Republic, but none that are as profound, wide-ranging, and as influential and important for later philosophy. As someone once wrote, in a sense the entire history of western philosophy consists of nothing but "footnotes to Plato." After finally reading it, I can see why there is so much truth to that statement.

"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.

Plato's The Republic, is not only a classic work of the fourth century B.C., but a masterpiece of utopian literature as a whole. Mr. Lee's translation brings into light the political and poetical wisdom of Plato into English from the original Greek. In The Republic, Plato raises questions that are still at the heart of many modern conflicts and heated debates. What is justice? What is goodness? What is the right political authority? Plato examines these questions as aspects of a single theme. He offers a portrait of an ideal state in which power is entrusted to the philosopher king(s), and other men and women accept the authority of the wise and the good. If no one has read The Republic, then he or she has not read anything!

My intent is not to bog down the reader with a lot of drivel.

This is one of the better copies of the republic I have seen and read. I would have prefered a hardcover version, but at this price it is a steal. There are copious footnotes and references which further assist the reader in deciphering one of the most published and interested philosphical texts ever.

As far as the work by Plato, it is one of the single most important books ever written and should be read by every person with an above average IQ and a thirst for knowledge and understanding (which begins with truth, thanks Plato!).

This is a fascinating piece of literature because it gives us an intimate look at Socrates who was Plato's mentor. The book is broken up into 10 different sections or books. In this work we get a clear picture of Socrates' idea of an ideal state, and it is remarkable how timely a lot of Socrates' thoughts are to modern day problems, considering that this work was written by Plato in the mid-400's. B.C. A lot of the ideas that are expounded in this massive work are Plato's own. The work is set out in a series of dialogues with two men where Socrates is supposed to be visiting. It begins with a philosophic argument as to what is justice and what is injustice, and from there a whole state is set out. The state includes three main groups of people - The Guardians who rule and advise the rest; the soldiers who defend the state and the workers such as husbandmen or farmers, cobblers, etc. who provide all the useful materials used by the citizens of the state. I found this work pretty tough going as it is long and detailed, but I managed to slog through it all, and actually found the work quite insightful, and certainly interesting.

Most people know this book by title, not by content. I must admit reading this book is not for the faint at heart. Rhetorics will be thrown in your face as if it is common language and some sense of historical background on the Greeks may help as well.

But this shouldn't hold you back from reading this classic piece, all 450 pages of it. It is not so much the result of all thinking, but the process of thinking itself which makes this a great book. Known as one of the greatest Greek philosiphers of all-time you can get a taste of his way of thinking and the time he was living in.

If you have any interest in history and philosophy you'll love this book.

An excellent look at the positives and (many) negatives associated with an elitist dictatorial society. Ironically, while many argue that Plato was calling for just such a utopia, a strong argument can be made that Plato was in fact pointing out the weakenesses with just such a creation. Plato's allegory of the cave is, perhaps, the most eye opening part of the text.