The Laws of Plato

Rating:
Summary: A Useful Corrective to a Distorted View of Plato
Review: Plato's "Republic" is used most often in college courses to illustrate Plato's thoughts on politics, but it does not seem to contain a serious political program. The characters in the "Republic" are mostly young men not yet entrusted with political responsibility who are, nevertheless, concerned with justice and how a city would have to be composed in order to be fully just. That such a city could never, in fact, come about becomes less important than the questions of justice and soul that the discussion raises. Obviously (and by Plato's intention) the "Republic" does not present a practical political program. Students relying on this dialogue alone to get a sense of Plato's thoughts on the best regime may be led astray, especially if they are guided by a bad teacher (of which there are many in the universities). The best corrective to this is to read Pangle's translation of Plato's "Laws". In this dialogue an Athenian Stranger discusses various proposed laws with a Cretan who is shortly to assist in the founding of the new colony of Magnesia. The laws and regulations proposed by the Stranger are concessions to the way men are, rather than idealistic portraits of how they should be. The rule of philosopher-kings is not proposed, and the fact that all three interlocutors come from cities that at one time or another were at war with one another introduces a note of distrust and seriousness that is missing in the more playful "Republic"; this seriousness befits the discussion's more practical nature. Pangle's translation is literal and trustworthy where other translations take liberties with Plato's terminology, while the notes ameliorate the limitations of the translation form. If you are unsatisfied with this, prepare to learn the Greek since a better translation is not likely to be forthcoming. If Pangle's Interpretive Essay leaves a bad taste in your mout, feel free to read "The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws" by Leo Strauss. My impression, however, is that Pangle's essay is more appropriate for readers who may find the unfamiliar "Laws" more, well, unfamiliar than, say, the "Republic". No one can deny that the "Laws" is more complex than the "Republic" and builds on many of that dialogue's insights, coming as it does at the end of Plato's career. To my mind, however, it is as indispensable as the "Republic" and teachers do their students a great disservice by not assigning the "Laws" more often. In conclusion, I highly recommend this dialogue and translation--accept no substitutes.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book on the politics
Review: The Laws by Plato is one of the best book on the political science. Here are some reasons why I think the Laws is the best book of the politics. First, This book extensively and thoroughly covers every aspects of the society such as education, laws, politics, justice, and religion. Unlike the Republic, the Laws has some pratical values in it. In other word, every political idea in this book is applicable to the Greek-States at the Hellinic period.

Rating:
Summary: Where's the Philosophy?
Review: This is a very flawed book. The translation suffices; however, the Interpretive essay is horribly flawed. Pangle bases his essay with direct reference to 'The Aplopgy' a profoundly exoteric work that does not shed sufficent insight into Socrates' view of philosophy. Even worse, Pangle states that 'The Laws' is what Socrates would have done if he had the time and oppurtunity to be a legislater. Garbage. There is no support for this wild asserion. Moreover, Plato himself took great pains to not include Socrates in 'The Laws', for his name never appears in the text. Yes, there are brilliant men who think The Athenian Stranger is Socrates (Leo Strauss and Aristotle) but Pangle just takes their word for it, he cannot argue his own case, a very unphilosophic thing to do, and bulldoses his way into his essay using Socrates name as a substitute for The Athenian Stranger. I found this, personally, quite apalling. There must be a deeper reason why Plato took such care in drafting his dialogues. Pardon my snotiness here, but I think Pangle is just imatating his Cornell professor Allan Bloom who wrote a truly philosophic masterpiece in 1968 with his translation of 'The Republc', why Pangle, at such a young age took on such a deeply complicated dialogue is beyond me, Leo Strauss waited until he was in his sixties before he published anything on 'The Laws'. Think how Book X of 'The Republic' denigrates imitation. Pangle's entire Interpretive Essay should be rewritten- it's unphilosophical. He should return to 'The Republic' and make an effort at understanding how each book relates to one another and especially how Plato himself thought they related. Such an endevour would be worthy of the name schlorship, philosophy, and Allan Bloom.