Scan barcode
rougemoon's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
One of the foundational text of western philosophy. If you were to pick just one book to get a good grasp on Plato's philosophy, you really couldn't go wrong with The Republic. His metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics are included in this one book. Some of his shorter dialogues are often recommended for beginners, but I think The Republic is very manageable, as long as you're willing to stick with it.
tombennett72's review against another edition
4.0
I’m no philosopher, and it took a while to relax into letting the theoretical models be described and then deconstructed. This modern reader kept jumping ahead with thoughts like ‘but this is nonsense’.
So reading Plato is a long game. One that’s worth it. Because it’s a case of seeing past the obvious to the structure of what he’s saying: seeing the forest, not just the tree in front of you.
I enjoyed this book (even if it took me an age to finish, with countless other books finished on the way). I came to this from Cicero, whose writings I found more directly accessible. But I think everyone should read part 10 of book 9. It wonderfully sums up the attitude to the value of philosophy, and bears reading and consideration today.
So reading Plato is a long game. One that’s worth it. Because it’s a case of seeing past the obvious to the structure of what he’s saying: seeing the forest, not just the tree in front of you.
I enjoyed this book (even if it took me an age to finish, with countless other books finished on the way). I came to this from Cicero, whose writings I found more directly accessible. But I think everyone should read part 10 of book 9. It wonderfully sums up the attitude to the value of philosophy, and bears reading and consideration today.
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.
mkw1lson's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
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.