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: 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: 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. :)
Rating:
Summary: The only responsible way to read Plato
Review: The Republic is a challenging, intricate, subtle work in which every word counts. This is why a "literal" translation is necessary -- a translation that truly reflects the Greek. Bloom's introduction, in which he defends this approach, is an excellent argument against paraphrasing translations, which water down Plato and make him easy and unsurprising. (One exception to Bloom's literality: he translates "hyôn polis," 372d, as "city of sows" rather than the traditional "city of pigs." There is no justification for the female "sows" in the Greek, and I must assume that this is just Bloom's own chauvinist pigdom coming out.) Bloom's interpretive essay presents his reading of the Republic as an implicit criticism of the thirst for absolute political justice. A plausible reading, but not as obvious as Bloom sometimes makes it sound. (To see the more subtle source of Bloom's ideas, read Leo Strauss's "The City and Man." And for a fictionalized portrait of Allan Bloom, see Saul Bellow's new novel, "Ravelstein.")
Rating:
Summary: The only responsible way to read Plato
Review: The Republic is a challenging, intricate, subtle work in which every word counts. This is why a "literal" translation is necessary -- a translation that truly reflects the Greek. Bloom's introduction, in which he defends this approach, is an excellent argument against paraphrasing translations, which water down Plato and make him easy and unsurprising. (One exception to Bloom's literality: he translates "hyôn polis," 372d, as "city of sows" rather than the traditional "city of pigs." There is no justification for the female "sows" in the Greek, and I must assume that this is just Bloom's own chauvinist pigdom coming out.) Bloom's interpretive essay presents his reading of the Republic as an implicit criticism of the thirst for absolute political justice. A plausible reading, but not as obvious as Bloom sometimes makes it sound. (To see the more subtle source of Bloom's ideas, read Leo Strauss's "The City and Man." And for a fictionalized portrait of Allan Bloom, see Saul Bellow's new novel, "Ravelstein.")
Rating: 
Summary: Evil In Disguise
Review: The seeds of Marxism were sown here and, hence, socialism and all its virulent forms, including communism, fascism, and nazism.
Rating:
Summary: The classic--what did you expect?
Review: 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 famous 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. Of course, since the dialogues we have were written down by Socrates' most famous student, Plato, perhaps the cards were stacked a little in his teacher's favor. 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.
| 
