Republic of Plato

Rating:
Summary: Socrates mostly a figment of Plato's imagination
Review: This is one of the better translations of Plato's Republic, and his theories are still applicable to this day. When he speaks of different forms of government, and the pitfalls of each, it's amazingly accurate even more then 2700 years later. Even democracy, as we've come to appreciate it has pitfalls as Plato explains it. One of the leading problems, is the possible evolution towards tyranny. And a lot can be said about Bush and the steps some democratic governments take to become Tyrannical.
Another thing most people should take into consideration is that although Plato claims most of the dialogue and arguement is based on conversations between Socrates and his circle, the truth is, much of the dialogue attributed to Socrates, is most likely Plato's own thoughts. At the time of his writings, Socrates was already dead, and some of Plato's theories were quite inflammitory. He speaks of one god, instead of many gods, and his ideas of what a Republic should be could have had him condemned to the same fate as Socrates (imprisonment and capital punishment). Thus, what Plato smartly does is attributes most of his own theories and ideas to what he purportedly heard from Socrates.

Rating:
Summary: Understandable Translation with Explanatory Intros
Review: .
This translation of Cornford is the best one that I've found for clarity and understanding. The translation itself is not exact or literal, as I find strict adhesure to the literal as corrupting the clarity with exactitude and awkwardness. No doubt if you rather a more exact translation then you must look perhaps to Allan Bloom's, which is totally a good one, and much more so it's the 100+ page interpretive essay of Bloom that makes his book totally worthwhile.

Cornford further divides "The Republic of Plato" into 6 Parts with multiple chapters in each part! And to top if off with an introduction in italics before each new topic that he has divided into separate chapters. This is extremely helpful to piece all the thoughts together and I find it a hell of lot more helpful then the traditional 10 books/divisions found in Bloom's translation, and most others.

You can't help but admire Socrates how he reasons so well how truth is always a paradox and not one-sided, as in that of justice verses injustice, how Thrasymachus argues the stronger are the ones who control and benefit, While Socrates argues the weaker are that ones that benefit from requiring the need of the stronger's art of practicing justice in order to receive the injustice he dominates from the weaker. It's incredible paradox and argument. Of course when the stronger becomes less strong and the weaker less weak a balance of justice occurs but not with radical equalitarian methods of communism or totalitarianism, but rather with wise Philosopher Kings and the Guardians that protect the society.

Socrates government has some totalitarian attributes, as in the sharing children and censorship, while other aspects, such as the training of the Guardians, the Philosopher kings, and most assuredly, his analysis of comparison of oligarchy, democracy, timocracy and despotism, including the nature of individuals in such systems makes this highly interesting material. And none of Socrates words in Plato's writing and Cornford's translation are obscure and overly abstract. There is no Immanuel Kant language, or Hegel, here.

What a great thinker Socrates was. It may be more accurate to say what a great thinker Plato was in his description of Socrates. His continual quest for truth, virtue and in the case of Plato's Republic, justice. At first his idea of justice is very noble and always intriguing, thought provoking and honorable. However, what begins as an intellectual idea of what justice is, ends up being a logically formed government that intellectually, or scientifically, measures, analyzes and controls the creativity of man, a government that epitomizes what centuries later labeled as the Enlightenment, which demystified the artistic man into a pragmatic and positivist being. While democracy based on a rational system of "rights" developed from the likes of Hobbes, Locke and Mill, what ultimately resulted was a Marxist censorship government of control that emulated itself much in line with this Plato's Republic, the extreme rule built on scientific and rational means of communism and totalitarianism.

It becomes utterly frightening to hear Socrates speak so eloquently and intelligibly on what reads as good common sense of a cities justice, training, rule and protection that history has revealed as governmental experiments that were tried, tested, enforced, controlled and in turn, destroyed the chaotic, non-rational elements of creative value producing ability in human society. The results of such totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, all built on the seemingly rational and coherent science of common rule and radical equalitarianism have proved themselves horrendously disastrous.

Some examples are: the youth should be trained as soldiers for the city. All scripture, the stories of Homer and the gods, must be censored and altered to shine only a positive or molded light that conforms to the leaders decision. The leaders, while only those of older age would be qualified, would receive a life carefully censored, trained and observed from youth, and would supposedly then become completely wise as philosophers kings, and in this way cannot bring injustice to their rulership. In addition, all music, poetry, art is censored. People who need lifetime medical attention should not receive such and die, (their much better off this way!) as they are nonproductive to the growth and science of what constitutes an ideal and perfect city.

Socrates/Plato's descriptions of the two world view and the allegory of the cave are in themselves absolute masterpieces and have literally shaped Western civilization as we know it and are truly behind the majority of ideas and teachings we currently believe and are raised in.

Ultimately, I found Socrates argument on Philosophy verses Poetry amazing and understand why Nietzsche completely rebelled and attacked Socrates. I then venture to the East as in the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra and Osho's commentary on such, as in some of Krishnamurti, Buddha, Krishna, Mahriavara and the idea of something beyond the mind/Apollonian/head rationalism of Socrates and the heart/Dionysus/emotion irrationalism of Nietzsche. To Socrates the mind and reason are superior to the emotions and feelings. To Nietzsche it is in the realm of emotions, in the passions of irrationalism and the art of creativity where the superior strength of man exists. To the East it is neither, but the mind and heart act as instruments of something of a Higher realm, the Consciousness or the Self, which exists outside the mind. Here I will agree with all three modes of thought: that fundamentalism and one-sided truths are bogus and for lower and ignorant thinkers. However, it was Socrates who failed to understand the depth of significance in the irrational, while Nietzsche recognized the foolishness and stupidity of biblical literalism and morality codes based on fundamental reasoning.

The irrational is what molds the rational, while the rational chisels it's form. It's the passiveness of Yin and the tension of Yang, which when let go and surrender are simply the Tao.

The ending of the Republic is worth the read. It is here Socrates supports immortality of the soul and reincarnation and it's amazing how you can see this is the precursor of the bible. The last book or account is symbolic and mythological on the pattern of the universe, the same as the book of Revelation is in the bible with its judgments of the just and unjust and depiction of a heavenly Jerusalem. Socrates also speaks of the winner of a race receiving the crown and the idea of Tartarus, as repeated in the letters of St. Paul. The men who wrote the bible and decided it's cannon are no doubt imitating the Republic of Plato, not to mention Dante and others who were heavily influenced by this book. And what a book it is!

Rating:
Summary: Cornford translation is a work of genius
Review: Cornford translates the meaning of Plato's argument, the language is clear and modern and conveys all the crucial material in the text. Allen Bloom's translation in contrast is literal, pedantic, and almost meaningless; it reads like a satire of the founding work of western thought.
Having read Republic in Greek, I can testify that the grammer, worldview, and conceptual universe of Greek is too different from English to allow literal translation--I made the mistake of assigning Bloom in my theory class and the students went out and bought other translations!!. Cornford is a brilliant expositor of Plato'
s metaphysics and epistemology and knows Plato's thoughtworld intimately--there is no translation that compares to the quality of his work. It is also a good read!

Rating:
Summary: Awsome
Review: If you love philosphy, this is the best book. There are many different versions of this book but this is the best one.

Rating:
Summary: The Republic has great value...in an INNER sense!
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: The classic discussion of what justice is and how it works.
Review: Plato's purpose here is to find the definition and nature of justice such as whether the just man is happier than the unjust man. I found that the dictionary says little more than "doing what's right" which doesn't say much.

The discussion opens with conventional definitions for justice that anyone might come up with such as "speaking the truth and giving back what one takes." But consider borrowing a weapon from a friend who asks for it back in a violent state of mind. Similarly, there can be times when telling the truth is wrong.

That definition seems wrong because it implies that you may have to harm a friend. So the second definition offered is that justice is benefiting your friends and harming your enemies. But this definition turns out to make justice useless because with matters of health, the doctor, not the just man, is most capable of benefiting friends and harming enemies. Furthermore, the doctor is useless to those who aren't sick. This definition really collapses when we consider that we may mistake people's true natures and be enemies with good people. Then it would be just to harm good people. Besides, harming a person makes him worse and this can't be justice. All this leaves in the definition is to benefit all people, which doesn't really say anything. Plato did not mean that punishing is harming them because then the purpose is to make them better. However, Nietzsche said that the purpose of punishment is to improve those--who punish.

The argument that justice is giving what is owed will be salvaged, however through this example: Cooking gives what is owed to food and learning gives what is owed to the mind. An example not used in the book is borrowing money with interest. You would owe the bank more than you borrowed, and owe it back within an specified time. This shows "giving what is owed" is more accurate than "giving back what one takes." This definition seems right, but hazy.

The next definition Plato proposes is "Might is Right", or obeying authority. The obvious fault here is that leaders make mistakes. Hairsplitting arguments follow which support the argument. The true doctor heals people and does not raise children or make money. A doctor only does those things inasmuch as he is also a parent and wage earner. A ruler acts in the best interest of those ruled and a citizen obeys the rulers. When the rulers fail in their duty, they are not truly rulers and the citizens should not obey them. This idea along with giving what one owes will come together for the definition. The discussion now moves toward the effects of justice and injustice.

The question comes up whether injustice can be good for a person to practice, if they can seem just and "get away with it." Plato describes tyranny as the most extreme injustice, "which by stealth and force, takes away what belongs to others, both what is sacred and profane, private and public, not bit by bit but all at once." The reader will later see tyranny to be the worst state and the tyrannic man to be the most unhappy.

The just man, the discussion goes, would be willing but unable to get the better of the unjust man but unwilling to get the better of the just man. The unjust man would be willing and able to get the better of both. Even gangs must have some justice in order for them to function because injustice breeds factions and quarrels. Unjust people working alone would be at faction within themselves. Plato then begins an analogy that the eyes can only do what they were meant to do if they have the virtue of seeing, whereas their vice would be blindness. He extends this analogy to mean that the virtue of the soul is justice, the vice injustice and that what the soul was meant to do was be happy. Like many of the analogies in this book, we may wonder whether the comparison is fairly drawn. At this point, little has really been concluded because before we can determine whether justice is a virtue or vice or the one who has it is happy or unhappy, justice itself must be defined. To define it, Plato looks to the ideal state, where it should be easier to observe than in an individual.

The purpose of creating a state was so that each person didn't have to farm his own food, make his own clothes, etc. In The Republic, each person has a function to serve-- one skill they excel in. They don't meddle in fields that aren't their own. Justice in this state lies in the relation the three classes of ruler, guardian, and craftsmen have to each other. Bringing this back to the individual, the classes correspond with wisdom, emotion, and desire, respectively. The just man's mind should be ordered just like the just state. If there is a conflict between desire and wisdom, emotion should take the side of wisdom. Plato now goes into more detail about why tyranny is the most unjust and unhappy state. It is because the worst parts are enslaved by the best parts; the desires are in control of the wisdom and emotion. The tyrant purges the city of the courageous, intelligent, etc. "Throughout his entire life his is full of fear, overflowing with convulsions and pains, indeed resembles the disposition of the city he rules."

Plato concludes that justice is beneficial for its own sake regardless of reputation or "being caught". Plato's definition is convincing yet hardly what I expected. We all have our own sense of justice despite lacking a definition of it. My philosophy is that injustice is harmful to the doer and others as well and vice versa. For example, a drunk driver could kill themselves and others as well. "The Republic" stands as the best tangible description of what justice is.

Rating:
Summary: A great translation that does justice to a great work
Review: Plato's Republic is really beyond reviews, and it would be presumptuous do anything other than encourage potential readers to study it for themselves. As the overt political slants of some of the other reviews suggest, his ideas resonate in the modern world as much as they did in his own. Whether a reader approaches Republic with positive or negative prejudices, the actual text of the argument forces constant reevaluation and refinement of those preexisting opinions.

Allan Bloom has created a literal translation that is ideal for those who truly wish to engage with Plato. Most other translators have used non-literal methods that attempt to convey in a more contemporary form what Plato "meant" by his arguments. However, in this process the translator's own interpretation of Plato's argument inevitably influences the language in which he renders his translation. Bloom has attempted, with a great degree of success, to separate the processes of translation and interpretation. Rather than imposing his reading on the text itself, he express it in a thought-provoking interpretive essay that follows the text

This is probably not the easiest translation of Plato to read, because Bloom does not attempt to serve as a baby-sitter for his readers. However, the extra time spent in reading this version will be well rewarded by a deeper understanding of Plato's argument.

Rating:
Summary: A great translation that does justice to a great work
Review: Plato's Republic is really beyond reviews, and it would be presumptuous do anything other than encourage potential readers to study it for themselves. As the overt political slants of some of the other reviews suggest, his ideas resonate in the modern world as much as they did in his own. Whether a reader approaches Republic with positive or negative prejudices, the actual text of the argument forces constant reevaluation and refinement of those preexisting opinions.

Allan Bloom has created a literal translation that is ideal for those who truly wish to engage with Plato. Most other translators have used non-literal methods that attempt to convey in a more contemporary form what Plato "meant" by his arguments. However, in this process the translator's own interpretation of Plato's argument inevitably influences the language in which he renders his translation. Bloom has attempted, with a great degree of success, to separate the processes of translation and interpretation. Rather than imposing his reading on the text itself, he express it in a thought-provoking interpretive essay that follows the text

This is probably not the easiest translation of Plato to read, because Bloom does not attempt to serve as a baby-sitter for his readers. However, the extra time spent in reading this version will be well rewarded by a deeper understanding of Plato's argument.

Rating:
Summary: For those willing to disagree
Review: So you've asked some of the tough questions. You've questioned your teachers, you've questioned your parents, you've questioned yourself (you never thought to ask your boss), but no one seems to know--and you want answers. The Republic is not the book for you to read--unless you're willing to try to arrive at your own conclusions.

What is Justice? Minding one's own business, of course. If only Socrates had come upon this idea when he was young, the rest of us might have been spared all the torment. In the "Republic," however, he comes upon this conclusion before we are1/3 of the way through the book, and before the real summit of the dialogue. So, with regard to the fact that Socrates seems to be disobeying his own advice (being patently unjust), what could he mean by his definition of justice?

Why is life, your life--your only life, perhaps,--best led in pursuit and obeyance of reason? Why not something else? What else is there to pursue/obey? What's the difference between a poet/artist and a philosopher? Don't the artists have a better time? Should a ruler lie to his/her constituents? His/her children? How important is family? What is inherent in a person? What isn't? How much control do we have and how should we use what we have? What political structure would be best for people? Do the ends justify the means, especially if no one sees the means? Is Justice good in itself? Like dancing or great love making? And is Justice good for its consequences? How should I live my life? Why? Why? WHY???

How do we begin to understand our place in the world?? How do we begin to understand the world??

The Republic will not answer any of these questions for you--unless you believe everything your parents told you. But this book will help you to understand much more closely what you believe about all of these questions and many more. It will encourage you to come up with reasons of your own for your opinions. And it will point out some starting points for the last couple questions.

How can someone give The Republic 3 stars? You just press a button, move the mouse, and press it again. I'd give it 5 stars if I thought that anyone would reconsider reading the book because they saw that the average review was a mere 4 1/2 stars. But, of course, it will only get the number of readers that any other great but difficult book gets--not enough.

Is Bloom's translation the only responsible way to read The Republic? No. It would be entirely possible to read the book in greek without reading it responsibly. The only truly responsible way to read the Republic is to read it attentively with the use of all of one's faculties. Whether you agree or disagree with each question/statement is of paramount importance, as is the relation between your tentative conclusions. The difficulty of reading responsibly, however, fatigues even professional scholars whose reputations are on the line (although that may not be the most important of wagers). Luckily, one of the beauties of the Republic is that it really does cater to every level of engagement, except non-engagement, and tries to stimulate each person to further thought.

The Republic will not be too much for you. Or, rather, it will be too much, but that only means you're human. And, though it will challenge your beliefs and opinions, shock--even scare--you, and throw much of your clarity and order into confusion, I believe you will be a better person for having honestly asked these questions. And that you will become better by trying to answer them.

Life demands that you live by your answers to these questions and many more like them. They are worth asking.

Plus, the overall structure of the ideas contains a beauty seldom seen in any human creation.

Altogether, a really good book. A life changer.

Rating:
Summary: A splendid translation of one of the world's greatest texts.
Review: The famous French philosopher, Rene Descartes, once said that the reading of good books "is like a conversation with the finest men of past centuries." I agree with Descartes; and there are probably few better groups of people to have an intelligent conversation with than Socrates and his friends.

Allan Bloom's translation is a breath of much needed fresh air. We have here a very literal translation of The Republic. Bloom doesn't try to spoon feed Plato to us, and I for one am very glad about that. In the introduction Bloom makes, in my opinion, a very powerful case for the literal translation of The Republic. When I first picked this translation up I wasn't sure that a strictly literal translation was really need, so I'm greatful for this introduction. Bloom tells us precisely why he thinks that it is a good idea to have a literal translation and he's darn convincing, I say.

Give this a shot. Lord knows you'll get more out of it than that dreadful Penguin translation. :)