Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.66 AVERAGE
3.66 AVERAGE
Plato’s Republic was so interesting. The definitions of justice explored are fascinating, but none claim to be the end-all, be-all. The thought experiment of the city and the allegory of the cave—these famous techniques comes alive and become all the more informative when read within the context of how one should live one’s life, maintain justice within oneself and control over oneself, and understand the three elements (rational, spirited, appetitive) within one. It has been a gift to study this book and others in order to understand the pillars of Platonic philosophy.
medium-paced
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
The introduction by the translator was about as long as the text itself, and helpful insofar as it exposes the reader to the translators biases and state of mind regarding the text. I am no scholar of ancient Greek, but the preference for interpreting the meritorious state as a monarchy, and the use of monotheistic concepts might not fully communicate Plato's position.
Of the main text, it's interesting to see how little self reflection these philosophers did. It was amusing to read Plato's take on democracy, and the extent to which his views of women were both advanced for his time, but still painfully antiquated in today's world. Also, his opinions on slavery show a significant blind spot of his in understanding of society in general.
To future readers, maybe don't bother suffering the translators intro if you want to save some hours of your life...
Of the main text, it's interesting to see how little self reflection these philosophers did. It was amusing to read Plato's take on democracy, and the extent to which his views of women were both advanced for his time, but still painfully antiquated in today's world. Also, his opinions on slavery show a significant blind spot of his in understanding of society in general.
To future readers, maybe don't bother suffering the translators intro if you want to save some hours of your life...
Nothing beautiful without struggle
Written around 375 BC, Plato’s The Republic is an ancient philosophical text presented in a series of dialogues between Socrates and his three interlocutors on the ideas of the perfect state and the individual within it.
During the course of the conversation, many questions are raised, concerning goodness, justice, the different forms of government, the structure of the ideal state, and the nature of the guardians (read philosopher kings) that ought to govern the just state. Socrates discusses these questions and delineates, through his trademark dialectics, the unsullied and the ideal forms of these concepts and the need to aspire towards them for a better community.
The internal organization of the State and the virtues thereof are juxtaposed with those of the individual within it, and as far as they are comparable, the Republic can also be seen as a text of moral philosophy just as much as it is of political philosophy. Indeed, Socrates’ main concern is with the individual, and only by extension does he define and expand on the nature of the State.
With exceptional lucidity and clinical use of the Socratic Method, Plato arrives at his theory of forms and his famous ‘The Allegory of the Cave’ and traces out a state bound by harmony and ruled by philosopher kings.
His interlocutors make up the mouthpiece for the common opinions held by Athenians (that seem very familiar) which Socrates argues against, and highlights through his own (feigned) ignorance the ignorance of others.
There is no doubt that there are many flaws with Plato’s arguments (especially his ideas on communal living for the guardians and the role of arts in education) which become all the more apparent with the straw-men positions that his debaters take.
But his points are cogent enough to provoke thought and a philosophical examination of one’s life, which I believe is more the purpose of this book than to incite any form of revolution based upon a theory. A quiet revolution within is much more necessary to live a harmonious life, even if the state outside doesn’t crown one a king.
Plato’s defense of philosophy, his views on the corruptors of prodigious youth, and the regression of the different states of government – from his espoused Aristocracy through Timocracy, Oligarchy, all the way to Democracy and Tyranny – make up the best chapters (6 through 8) of the book when Socrates brings out his big guns. If you don’t have the time to go through the whole book, I would definitely recommend checking those chapters out.
Written around 375 BC, Plato’s The Republic is an ancient philosophical text presented in a series of dialogues between Socrates and his three interlocutors on the ideas of the perfect state and the individual within it.
During the course of the conversation, many questions are raised, concerning goodness, justice, the different forms of government, the structure of the ideal state, and the nature of the guardians (read philosopher kings) that ought to govern the just state. Socrates discusses these questions and delineates, through his trademark dialectics, the unsullied and the ideal forms of these concepts and the need to aspire towards them for a better community.
The internal organization of the State and the virtues thereof are juxtaposed with those of the individual within it, and as far as they are comparable, the Republic can also be seen as a text of moral philosophy just as much as it is of political philosophy. Indeed, Socrates’ main concern is with the individual, and only by extension does he define and expand on the nature of the State.
With exceptional lucidity and clinical use of the Socratic Method, Plato arrives at his theory of forms and his famous ‘The Allegory of the Cave’ and traces out a state bound by harmony and ruled by philosopher kings.
His interlocutors make up the mouthpiece for the common opinions held by Athenians (that seem very familiar) which Socrates argues against, and highlights through his own (feigned) ignorance the ignorance of others.
There is no doubt that there are many flaws with Plato’s arguments (especially his ideas on communal living for the guardians and the role of arts in education) which become all the more apparent with the straw-men positions that his debaters take.
But his points are cogent enough to provoke thought and a philosophical examination of one’s life, which I believe is more the purpose of this book than to incite any form of revolution based upon a theory. A quiet revolution within is much more necessary to live a harmonious life, even if the state outside doesn’t crown one a king.
Plato’s defense of philosophy, his views on the corruptors of prodigious youth, and the regression of the different states of government – from his espoused Aristocracy through Timocracy, Oligarchy, all the way to Democracy and Tyranny – make up the best chapters (6 through 8) of the book when Socrates brings out his big guns. If you don’t have the time to go through the whole book, I would definitely recommend checking those chapters out.
--DNF-- with no rating. It's confusing for me, I don't think The Republic by Plato is a good place to start w/ Philosophy reads.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Yeah I liked it. It’s very readable and it’s interesting and engaging throughout. Plato posits some interesting ideas. All these sort of older treaties (I am flattering to deceive here: all I have read is this and Hobbes’ Leviathan) on politics are often extremely authoritarian in nature which is always good to read.
Can’t help but feel a lot of it is pretty detached from reality, but to be fair the bloke was writing literal thousands of years ago. His description of all the different societies is apt and interesting, but the idea of the ‘philosophical ruler’ - pretty much the foundational project of the text- is just silly. ‘Yeah guys the best way to live is just to have this omnipotent benevolent dictator sort everything out but don’t worry we can just train them up.’ Though interestingly, I view the idea of the Philosopher Ruler bred out of sheer frustration and political jettisoning- a feeling many, including myself, could relate to today. And clearly, as people seem increasingly to want a strong, central ruler. But the whole thing that their philosophy will keep them just and prevent corruption- whilst arguing that really this philosophy ‘inevitably’ (a word he uses almost constantly) must be exactly as he describes it. Plato seems to ignore the first role of being a teacher: that truly impressive teaching leads the student to a different idea than yours, as well as the general rule, with very few exceptions, that power corrupts. I would argue especially power amassed by avarice- power won. So the hereditary things about a caste consolidation of power, underwritten by a philosophical creed, does of course make some sense, but is ultimately, I think, slightly ignorant of the wearisome political realities and fallibilities.
I enjoyed his- basically bonkers- ideas that were occasionally thrown in. Especially on human copulation. You are telling me that in the ideal society the sex instinct- the oldest (and arguably most powerful) one we possess, is to be sanctioned only at state-mandated sex festivals?? Though, in fairness- perhaps we would all be better if we all abstain from sex all year, save for these sex festivals where we are individually assigned a mate. If we organised these classes into sort of castes of economic output, we would get some fantastic couples. The sex tent (I am imagining a huge, Glastonbury festival type tent with blaring soft reggae) with the people who attain capital from meeting and projecting demand would potentially mix the instagram influencer with the garbage man. Meanwhile, in the Ruler sex tent, there would (unfortunately) be a whole crowd of Kennedy’s and Clinton’s continually interbreeding, Hapsburg style, until every nation on earth is governed by a Kennedy-Clinton hybrid: simultaneously jittering about in the seat, foaming mouth, screeching about how vaccines cause the chlamydia that, in fact, they attained from clandestine sexual relations with their promiscuous secretaries.
Ironically maybe the society that emulated Plato’s ideal one the most is the Romans? I don’t know much about them, but I swear they had like different castes- including a political class, a Philosopher Executive, if you like, as well as a military class, and these two were interwoven, like Plato’s Guardians and Rulers. Not a complete match, but still. Side note: I was a bit confused how Plato continually refers to these ‘Rulers’ when a lot of it is about the Philosophical Ruler. I think it means that there are a bunch of different Philosophical Rulers who all work together, sort of like the Civil Service if the Civil Service was functional. But, in my experience, people who enjoy ruling, or control, do not enjoy sharing their rule. Though of course these Philosophers are different because they follow Plato’s dictates on justice to the letter.
I didn’t love the Socratic method. Far from being a way of furthering ideas, Plato goes pretty much unchallenged by those around him- whilst, ironically, Plato keeps banging on about the duty to search for truth, feeling like and old man simultaneously talking to himself whilst laughing at his own jokes and periodically patting himself on the back whilst he does it. Also, it got tiring after a while, could have been more condensed perhaps. So much about Justice- a concept that is clearly such a subjective notion that it doesn’t deserve all the attention it gets here.
I definitely need to re-read parts of this- really pp. 250-300, including the Allegory of the Cave. This whole section of book 7 just went over my head and needs another look.
So- great, very interesting, but had me either confused, or incredulous, or bored just a few too many times for me to say I truly loved it.
Can’t help but feel a lot of it is pretty detached from reality, but to be fair the bloke was writing literal thousands of years ago. His description of all the different societies is apt and interesting, but the idea of the ‘philosophical ruler’ - pretty much the foundational project of the text- is just silly. ‘Yeah guys the best way to live is just to have this omnipotent benevolent dictator sort everything out but don’t worry we can just train them up.’ Though interestingly, I view the idea of the Philosopher Ruler bred out of sheer frustration and political jettisoning- a feeling many, including myself, could relate to today. And clearly, as people seem increasingly to want a strong, central ruler. But the whole thing that their philosophy will keep them just and prevent corruption- whilst arguing that really this philosophy ‘inevitably’ (a word he uses almost constantly) must be exactly as he describes it. Plato seems to ignore the first role of being a teacher: that truly impressive teaching leads the student to a different idea than yours, as well as the general rule, with very few exceptions, that power corrupts. I would argue especially power amassed by avarice- power won. So the hereditary things about a caste consolidation of power, underwritten by a philosophical creed, does of course make some sense, but is ultimately, I think, slightly ignorant of the wearisome political realities and fallibilities.
I enjoyed his- basically bonkers- ideas that were occasionally thrown in. Especially on human copulation. You are telling me that in the ideal society the sex instinct- the oldest (and arguably most powerful) one we possess, is to be sanctioned only at state-mandated sex festivals?? Though, in fairness- perhaps we would all be better if we all abstain from sex all year, save for these sex festivals where we are individually assigned a mate. If we organised these classes into sort of castes of economic output, we would get some fantastic couples. The sex tent (I am imagining a huge, Glastonbury festival type tent with blaring soft reggae) with the people who attain capital from meeting and projecting demand would potentially mix the instagram influencer with the garbage man. Meanwhile, in the Ruler sex tent, there would (unfortunately) be a whole crowd of Kennedy’s and Clinton’s continually interbreeding, Hapsburg style, until every nation on earth is governed by a Kennedy-Clinton hybrid: simultaneously jittering about in the seat, foaming mouth, screeching about how vaccines cause the chlamydia that, in fact, they attained from clandestine sexual relations with their promiscuous secretaries.
Ironically maybe the society that emulated Plato’s ideal one the most is the Romans? I don’t know much about them, but I swear they had like different castes- including a political class, a Philosopher Executive, if you like, as well as a military class, and these two were interwoven, like Plato’s Guardians and Rulers. Not a complete match, but still. Side note: I was a bit confused how Plato continually refers to these ‘Rulers’ when a lot of it is about the Philosophical Ruler. I think it means that there are a bunch of different Philosophical Rulers who all work together, sort of like the Civil Service if the Civil Service was functional. But, in my experience, people who enjoy ruling, or control, do not enjoy sharing their rule. Though of course these Philosophers are different because they follow Plato’s dictates on justice to the letter.
I didn’t love the Socratic method. Far from being a way of furthering ideas, Plato goes pretty much unchallenged by those around him- whilst, ironically, Plato keeps banging on about the duty to search for truth, feeling like and old man simultaneously talking to himself whilst laughing at his own jokes and periodically patting himself on the back whilst he does it. Also, it got tiring after a while, could have been more condensed perhaps. So much about Justice- a concept that is clearly such a subjective notion that it doesn’t deserve all the attention it gets here.
I definitely need to re-read parts of this- really pp. 250-300, including the Allegory of the Cave. This whole section of book 7 just went over my head and needs another look.
So- great, very interesting, but had me either confused, or incredulous, or bored just a few too many times for me to say I truly loved it.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Showed me the origins of: beauty being equivalent to morality; health equaling virtue, the importance of being well rounded. These concepts are problematic but entrenched parts of Anglo/American culture/ "western civilization" :P.
Contains the origins of the well-rounded statesman.
Plato's conclusion that the kingly man is the happiest/most just amongst men does not sit well with me. A king is the purest form of tyrant in my opinion. A philosopher king is no better.
Allegory of cave is helpful.
So much to struggle with.
People with slaves pondering the meaning of freedom and justice...
The ending was unexpectedly touching particularly the part about the soul forever spiraling upward toward justice.
Contains the origins of the well-rounded statesman.
Plato's conclusion that the kingly man is the happiest/most just amongst men does not sit well with me. A king is the purest form of tyrant in my opinion. A philosopher king is no better.
Allegory of cave is helpful.
So much to struggle with.
People with slaves pondering the meaning of freedom and justice...
The ending was unexpectedly touching particularly the part about the soul forever spiraling upward toward justice.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced