A review by inquiry_from_an_anti_library
The Republic of Plato by Allan Bloom

adventurous challenging medium-paced

1.0

Is This An Overview?

The rule of the many cannot develop a just society, for the many are corruptible.  Most people would be willing to do harm to others to help themselves, but are prevented by the potential consequences of being caught.  The corruptible are those who cannot understand ideas that do not change, the perfect.  The corruptible mislead others, and therefore need to have their ideas removed from society. 

 

Within society, there are a few who can understand what is always the same, the philosophers.  The philosophers are those in possession of knowledge that make them worthy of being rulers, creating a necessary hierarchy.  Philosophers can become guardians of society, to preserve laws.  A just society needs philosopher-kings to lead them.  For a philosopher-king can withstand the corruption of the many, and educate the many to behave justly.  The soul of these guardians is filled by knowing that which is always the same, immortal and true. 

 

What Did The Ancillary Authors Think? 

The translator, and introductory author, claimed that The Republic was not written to be reasonable, to make valuable claims, but to be a drama of ideas.  To be outrageous and absurd.  To provoke thought.   To be read as dramatic irony rather than for political ideas. 

 

This claims seems to be problematic given that Plato’s contemporaries did not treat Plato’s ideas in such a way, and by dismissing the claims in the book removes Plato’s responsibility from the ideas.

 

Caveats?

This book is presented as a dialectic, a discussion of ideas, a dialogue.  The discussion is an illusion.  Plato uses Socrates as a method of explaining ideas, rather than explaining the ideas of Socrates the philosopher.  The characters who are part of the discussion, sometimes provide readily overcome criticism, but throughout most of the conversation, they just accept and praise every Socrates claim.  Deferring to Socrates rather than having a conversation with Socrates.  Just like how the people who are ruled are meant to defer to the philosopher-king who is supposed to know the appropriate decision.  The claims that are provided are generally flawed as they use irrelevant comparisons, have contradictions, and assume no possible alternative idea is acceptable.