Scan barcode
ryanlindbergo's review against another edition
3.0
I find rating Republic very difficult.
To start, I constantly considered that, it was possible, that any fault that I found wasn't in its pages, but within myself. Clearly, I find myself removed almost 2500 years from the world in which Plato wrote Republic. (Not to mention I'm about 12 years out from my last college class in which Plato was even tangentially discussed. Nor was Greek philosophy something I'd actively pursued in my higher education.) I cannot discount the high probability that the waves of time have washed away culturally significant meanings and that my education didn't provide me with a good base of knowledge to contextualize some of the concepts presented.
That said, I found it more surprising when I agreed with a point than when I found the reasoning to be dubious, fallacious, specious, or convoluted. I believe that the issue I had more often than not is that the dialectic is written more as a back-and-forth between Socrates and Glaucon and Adeimantius acting as "hypemen".Can you read more than a few pages without Glaucon or Adiemantius readily agreeing with anything/everything Socrates says?
Impossible.
And I think that the work is worse for it. Socrates' interlocutors spend so much of their time automatically agreeing with a point rather than helping to unpack an idea. Conclusions are often reached by leaps of logic that most people wouldn't accept at face value as Glaucon and Adeimantus do. Often we veer into territory that feels more like "shower arguments". It would have been nice to get a little more pushback outside of the obvious strawman Thrasymachus for his brief appearance in Book One.
The overall structure though is impressive. Topics that are broached early on are reincorporated in a symmetrical nature. Ideas of the earlier sections are masterfully woven into the latter half and callbacks to prior sections of the discussion are plentiful. While initially appearing unrelated, tangential discussion points are later revealed to be key building blocks building up to the final ideological conclusion. A shame though that many of the smaller conversations are only half-baked.
Overall, my impression at this point matches up well with Socrates' multiple comments throughout Republic on the nature of the discussion with his companions: we should not look upon this dialogue as being exhaustive nor should we consider this to be the final opinion of the huge topics of discussion, this should only be considered the starting point of consideration.
To start, I constantly considered that, it was possible, that any fault that I found wasn't in its pages, but within myself. Clearly, I find myself removed almost 2500 years from the world in which Plato wrote Republic. (Not to mention I'm about 12 years out from my last college class in which Plato was even tangentially discussed. Nor was Greek philosophy something I'd actively pursued in my higher education.) I cannot discount the high probability that the waves of time have washed away culturally significant meanings and that my education didn't provide me with a good base of knowledge to contextualize some of the concepts presented.
That said, I found it more surprising when I agreed with a point than when I found the reasoning to be dubious, fallacious, specious, or convoluted. I believe that the issue I had more often than not is that the dialectic is written more as a back-and-forth between Socrates and Glaucon and Adeimantius acting as "hypemen".Can you read more than a few pages without Glaucon or Adiemantius readily agreeing with anything/everything Socrates says?
Impossible.
And I think that the work is worse for it. Socrates' interlocutors spend so much of their time automatically agreeing with a point rather than helping to unpack an idea. Conclusions are often reached by leaps of logic that most people wouldn't accept at face value as Glaucon and Adeimantus do. Often we veer into territory that feels more like "shower arguments". It would have been nice to get a little more pushback outside of the obvious strawman Thrasymachus for his brief appearance in Book One.
The overall structure though is impressive. Topics that are broached early on are reincorporated in a symmetrical nature. Ideas of the earlier sections are masterfully woven into the latter half and callbacks to prior sections of the discussion are plentiful. While initially appearing unrelated, tangential discussion points are later revealed to be key building blocks building up to the final ideological conclusion. A shame though that many of the smaller conversations are only half-baked.
Overall, my impression at this point matches up well with Socrates' multiple comments throughout Republic on the nature of the discussion with his companions: we should not look upon this dialogue as being exhaustive nor should we consider this to be the final opinion of the huge topics of discussion, this should only be considered the starting point of consideration.
jacksezerhga's review against another edition
adventurous
reflective
fast-paced
4.25
The analysis provided by the translator before each book makes for a firm companion but can sometimes divert to topics unrelated or reaching. I was very pleased with my reading of the Republic but found my interest and Engagement faltering at the last 2 books. Plato is poetic and demanding of acknowledgment. He explores metaphysics brilliantly and I believe this book to be essential to understanding political philosophy.
chou520's review against another edition
5.0
4.5 stars
i cried. i laughed. i fell asleep on numerous occasions. i was confused. i felt mildly insulted especially during book10. overall, a compelling read. would i recommend this to the faint of heart? never. only the bravest can handle socrates describing what kind of public toilets should be instated in the ideal republic. just kidding he didn’t do that. or did he? i wouldn’t put it past him.
i cried. i laughed. i fell asleep on numerous occasions. i was confused. i felt mildly insulted especially during book10. overall, a compelling read. would i recommend this to the faint of heart? never. only the bravest can handle socrates describing what kind of public toilets should be instated in the ideal republic. just kidding he didn’t do that. or did he? i wouldn’t put it past him.
gijshuppertz's review against another edition
4.0
Plato's republic is genuinely an exciting and relatively easy read. While your attention is definitely required, it is a book that everybody who is slightly interested in philosophy can pick up. The Socratic dialogues read easily and the topics are relevant and gripping.
That being said, the book is a classic, does not mean that all the parts are equally well written. Some argumentations are lacking and it is easily visible that the book is from a distant time. This is also one of its major plusses, it is amazing to realize that you are reading a work that has past generations upon generations and is now in your hands.
In my opinion, some of the most imaginative books were books 2-4 (on the soul and how it is connected to the state), the allegory of the cave, and lastly his regimes.
I disliked books 2-4 quite a bit because, in the previous books, Plato seems to have found the cardinal virtues out of thin air and just leaves it at that (wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance). However, in 2-4 he tries to investigate how these virtues are reflected in the state. Thereby making up his different classes of rulers, guardians, and workers. Although he relies quite a lot on the idea that a person can only be good at one job, thereby limiting every citizen to only one occupation, it is interesting how he envisions an efficient and happy society.
What I found particularly interesting, was Plato's thoughts on art, myths, and education. While sometimes being a bit over the top with his negative attitude towards art. It is provoking to hear his argumentation regarding the influential workings of art and how it can break or shape people. Even in the current day and age, one can make a convincing argument that some types of art (or media) can have a negative effect on one's mood, attitude, and behavior. Thereby making the decision to cut out these types of media. One can think of the use of TikTok as an example of this.
Plato's allegory of the cave and his discussion of different regime types are classics. In general, interesting reads, and especially the allegory of the cave was fantastic to read once since it makes up so much of later philosophy.
Lastly, I wanted to note that I do not fully agree with the critiques (especially of Karl Popper) that Plato was a totalitarian thinker or that he lead the fundaments for later totalitarianism. While yes with the knowledge of our age, we can see some parallels, this does not mean that we can interpret Plato as consciously knowing or wanting a totalitarian state. For people interested in how to genuinely interpret historical texts I would like to recommend Quentin Skinner's Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. Furthermore, in the text, it is emphasized multiple times that the organization of the state is developed with happiness for most people in mind. I would like to think that if we could debate Plato on this thought and how it might develop later on, he might have changed his mind.
That being said, the book is a classic, does not mean that all the parts are equally well written. Some argumentations are lacking and it is easily visible that the book is from a distant time. This is also one of its major plusses, it is amazing to realize that you are reading a work that has past generations upon generations and is now in your hands.
In my opinion, some of the most imaginative books were books 2-4 (on the soul and how it is connected to the state), the allegory of the cave, and lastly his regimes.
I disliked books 2-4 quite a bit because, in the previous books, Plato seems to have found the cardinal virtues out of thin air and just leaves it at that (wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance). However, in 2-4 he tries to investigate how these virtues are reflected in the state. Thereby making up his different classes of rulers, guardians, and workers. Although he relies quite a lot on the idea that a person can only be good at one job, thereby limiting every citizen to only one occupation, it is interesting how he envisions an efficient and happy society.
What I found particularly interesting, was Plato's thoughts on art, myths, and education. While sometimes being a bit over the top with his negative attitude towards art. It is provoking to hear his argumentation regarding the influential workings of art and how it can break or shape people. Even in the current day and age, one can make a convincing argument that some types of art (or media) can have a negative effect on one's mood, attitude, and behavior. Thereby making the decision to cut out these types of media. One can think of the use of TikTok as an example of this.
Plato's allegory of the cave and his discussion of different regime types are classics. In general, interesting reads, and especially the allegory of the cave was fantastic to read once since it makes up so much of later philosophy.
Lastly, I wanted to note that I do not fully agree with the critiques (especially of Karl Popper) that Plato was a totalitarian thinker or that he lead the fundaments for later totalitarianism. While yes with the knowledge of our age, we can see some parallels, this does not mean that we can interpret Plato as consciously knowing or wanting a totalitarian state. For people interested in how to genuinely interpret historical texts I would like to recommend Quentin Skinner's Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. Furthermore, in the text, it is emphasized multiple times that the organization of the state is developed with happiness for most people in mind. I would like to think that if we could debate Plato on this thought and how it might develop later on, he might have changed his mind.
starofthelakereads's review
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
I would never ask Plato write me an objective research survey
muhavipi's review
5.0
Five stars are for books that get me to think and/or change a perspective. Plato/Socrates can certainly do that. The Republic is a necessary read to understand underlying elements of Philosophy and Christian theology.