Scan barcode
bobf2d33's review against another edition
5.0
A well-written, readable philosophy book that shows why Plato is still a relevant philospher in the 21st century.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
2.0
I finally went with a 2-star rating for this book. I will note that Goldstein did stimulate my thought at times, albeit half the time to take notes on how she was wrong, and did get me to modify somewhat the harsh take I’ve had on Socrates since reading Izzy Stone, but, the book is still not that good.
First, a couple of overarching issues.
I am discomfited by a professional philosopher diving into the tank of commercial toutery. Plato can’t just have a laptop, he has to have a Chromebook. He can’t just like the Internet, he has to like Google for searches rather than using a generic term for Internet search. He has to like Google’s cloud-based services. He has to like Google so much that, per one chapter that gives the book its title, he does indeed visit Google’s Googleplex, where much of the chapter’s dialogue is taken up by a Google PR flak.
Frankly, it made me want to vomit. Strangely, even among “negative” reviewers, I’m seemingly the first to hit that much on this issue.
The second overarching issue, is despite all the puffery on the blurbs and on some five-star reviews, Goldstein is not that good of a writer in my opinion. The book lacks some coherence, including exactly how she’s trying to make Plato relevant for today and why. Plus, some specific writing tricks do not float my boat.
On page 192, she says in a footnote: “I’m not sure whether Plato is just managing Munitz here or is really implying that she’s guardian material.” Bulls***. Don’t go Stanley Fish on me. You know full well what your conscious intention was with the passage you footnoted.
I'm skipping around a bit, in part to get more feel for the book, and in part because it hasn't floated my boat that much so far, despite all the advance touts it's gotten.
First, Goldstein, while noting Whitehead's observation about all later philosophy being but footnotes to Plato and Aristotle, then noting many modern philosophers disagree, doesn't explain why she, essentially, comes down on the side of Whitehead. And, as a philosopher, she knows that for a philosopher not to “argumentatively” justify one’s decision or stance on something like this is …. Unphilosophical!
Second, some of her specific stances related to Platonism are ones that are also contentious. The idea that there’s no single character in Plato’s dialogues that truly represents him? I know that’s nowhere unanimous. One need not believe that Socrates is Plato’s sole voice to nonetheless believe that he is his primary one, and certainly so in his early and middle dialogues.
Third, she buys wholeheartedly and blindly into Plato’s description of who the Sophists were. Plenty a critic of this position has noted that the elitists like Socrates, and arguably, Plato, disliked the Sophists not because they proposed to teach “sophistry” in its modern English terms, but because they proposed to, relatively inexpensively, teach the basics of rhetorical tools that would help level the social and legal playing field between the rich and the non-rich.
Fourth, she’s not proven at best, possibly wrong at worse, on the background of “Ivriim,” which may be the root the Hebrew word for “Hebrew.” Yes, it does mean “pass over,” or “pass through,” in its verbal root, but, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Hebrews applied it to themselves as “over the Jordan.” First, no ancient people are likely to define themselves this way, in terms of another culture or nation’s geographic point of view. Nor are the Jews likely to have said this about themselves because their mythical ancestor came from Transjordan and beyond. And, her interpretation starts with the noun form.
Better understandings of the root of this word are that as people “passing through,” it can mean immigrants, without geographic reference. Again, though, would a people likely refer to themselves that way? Interestingly, the verb is used in Genesis 15, where the torches pass between the cuts of meat during the Abrahamic covenant ceremony. That is one possible alternative etymology.
Another? “Hebrews” may well instead be a patronymic from alleged ancestor Eber (same consonantal Hebrew). And, the older attempts to connect them to the Egyptian “Hapiru,” while left by the wayside today, may not be totally dead.
Anyway, the fact that Goldstein, in a book about Plato, feels the need not just to talk about “Hebrews,” but the Hebrew etymology more than once, and possibly getting it wrong each and every time, is also disconcerting.
That’s from the first chapter.
On talking about the Republic, she made me realize that, of course, Plato’s ideas for youth education founder on Piaget’s stages of development. Pre-adolescents wouldn’t have been ready for his program. Surely, somebody else has mentioned that somewhere. But, she doesn’t.
Related?
I just realized that Plato's Allegory of the Cave has two holes in it as an analogy. First, if all we see our shadows, each of us has to be in our own cave; we can't be in one common cave because, of course, other people have to be shadows, too. Of course, to write it that way would wreck some of its force. Second, Plato talks about one person **being freed*** then **compelled** to re-see things. Plato doesn't mention a persona agent, but the language sure implies one. And, of course, no other person can compel new knowledge. Even if an agent is not intended, the passivity of the allegory, the "being freed," is just wrong.
Also, one need not agree with Izzy Stone’s attributing Socrates’ death entirely to legitimate politics to nonetheless say that it was part of it.
What I got from all of this is a Goldstein who largely believes in the largely idealized picture of Socrates that Plato has handed us.
So, I guess she stimulated my mind to reject the Whitehead idea that the rest of philosophy is but footnotes to Plato and Aristotle.
Besides the Googleplex chapter, one other one rings very false. That’s the one about Plato appearing on a would-be Fox News with an ersatz Bill O’Reilly.
It all adds up to the fact that she is NOT a skilled writer, period and end of story, despite the fluffy touts from A.C. Grayling and many another. She needed an editor with a good understanding of both philosophy and classics, and a firm and heavy hand, and got none. (Sic semper the decline of the modern book industry.)
Finally, from all this, no matter my interest in philosophy, I won’t be reading another book of hers.
And, I know now more of why it's that bad. Goldstein is Steve Pinker's wife. Something must have rubbed off or cross-pollinated. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/aug/23/on-my-radar-steven-pinker-psychologist-author?CMP=twt_gu
First, a couple of overarching issues.
I am discomfited by a professional philosopher diving into the tank of commercial toutery. Plato can’t just have a laptop, he has to have a Chromebook. He can’t just like the Internet, he has to like Google for searches rather than using a generic term for Internet search. He has to like Google’s cloud-based services. He has to like Google so much that, per one chapter that gives the book its title, he does indeed visit Google’s Googleplex, where much of the chapter’s dialogue is taken up by a Google PR flak.
Frankly, it made me want to vomit. Strangely, even among “negative” reviewers, I’m seemingly the first to hit that much on this issue.
The second overarching issue, is despite all the puffery on the blurbs and on some five-star reviews, Goldstein is not that good of a writer in my opinion. The book lacks some coherence, including exactly how she’s trying to make Plato relevant for today and why. Plus, some specific writing tricks do not float my boat.
On page 192, she says in a footnote: “I’m not sure whether Plato is just managing Munitz here or is really implying that she’s guardian material.” Bulls***. Don’t go Stanley Fish on me. You know full well what your conscious intention was with the passage you footnoted.
I'm skipping around a bit, in part to get more feel for the book, and in part because it hasn't floated my boat that much so far, despite all the advance touts it's gotten.
First, Goldstein, while noting Whitehead's observation about all later philosophy being but footnotes to Plato and Aristotle, then noting many modern philosophers disagree, doesn't explain why she, essentially, comes down on the side of Whitehead. And, as a philosopher, she knows that for a philosopher not to “argumentatively” justify one’s decision or stance on something like this is …. Unphilosophical!
Second, some of her specific stances related to Platonism are ones that are also contentious. The idea that there’s no single character in Plato’s dialogues that truly represents him? I know that’s nowhere unanimous. One need not believe that Socrates is Plato’s sole voice to nonetheless believe that he is his primary one, and certainly so in his early and middle dialogues.
Third, she buys wholeheartedly and blindly into Plato’s description of who the Sophists were. Plenty a critic of this position has noted that the elitists like Socrates, and arguably, Plato, disliked the Sophists not because they proposed to teach “sophistry” in its modern English terms, but because they proposed to, relatively inexpensively, teach the basics of rhetorical tools that would help level the social and legal playing field between the rich and the non-rich.
Fourth, she’s not proven at best, possibly wrong at worse, on the background of “Ivriim,” which may be the root the Hebrew word for “Hebrew.” Yes, it does mean “pass over,” or “pass through,” in its verbal root, but, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Hebrews applied it to themselves as “over the Jordan.” First, no ancient people are likely to define themselves this way, in terms of another culture or nation’s geographic point of view. Nor are the Jews likely to have said this about themselves because their mythical ancestor came from Transjordan and beyond. And, her interpretation starts with the noun form.
Better understandings of the root of this word are that as people “passing through,” it can mean immigrants, without geographic reference. Again, though, would a people likely refer to themselves that way? Interestingly, the verb is used in Genesis 15, where the torches pass between the cuts of meat during the Abrahamic covenant ceremony. That is one possible alternative etymology.
Another? “Hebrews” may well instead be a patronymic from alleged ancestor Eber (same consonantal Hebrew). And, the older attempts to connect them to the Egyptian “Hapiru,” while left by the wayside today, may not be totally dead.
Anyway, the fact that Goldstein, in a book about Plato, feels the need not just to talk about “Hebrews,” but the Hebrew etymology more than once, and possibly getting it wrong each and every time, is also disconcerting.
That’s from the first chapter.
On talking about the Republic, she made me realize that, of course, Plato’s ideas for youth education founder on Piaget’s stages of development. Pre-adolescents wouldn’t have been ready for his program. Surely, somebody else has mentioned that somewhere. But, she doesn’t.
Related?
I just realized that Plato's Allegory of the Cave has two holes in it as an analogy. First, if all we see our shadows, each of us has to be in our own cave; we can't be in one common cave because, of course, other people have to be shadows, too. Of course, to write it that way would wreck some of its force. Second, Plato talks about one person **being freed*** then **compelled** to re-see things. Plato doesn't mention a persona agent, but the language sure implies one. And, of course, no other person can compel new knowledge. Even if an agent is not intended, the passivity of the allegory, the "being freed," is just wrong.
Also, one need not agree with Izzy Stone’s attributing Socrates’ death entirely to legitimate politics to nonetheless say that it was part of it.
What I got from all of this is a Goldstein who largely believes in the largely idealized picture of Socrates that Plato has handed us.
So, I guess she stimulated my mind to reject the Whitehead idea that the rest of philosophy is but footnotes to Plato and Aristotle.
Besides the Googleplex chapter, one other one rings very false. That’s the one about Plato appearing on a would-be Fox News with an ersatz Bill O’Reilly.
It all adds up to the fact that she is NOT a skilled writer, period and end of story, despite the fluffy touts from A.C. Grayling and many another. She needed an editor with a good understanding of both philosophy and classics, and a firm and heavy hand, and got none. (Sic semper the decline of the modern book industry.)
Finally, from all this, no matter my interest in philosophy, I won’t be reading another book of hers.
And, I know now more of why it's that bad. Goldstein is Steve Pinker's wife. Something must have rubbed off or cross-pollinated. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/aug/23/on-my-radar-steven-pinker-psychologist-author?CMP=twt_gu
billbaxter's review against another edition
5.0
Fantastic movement of Plato ideas and how he is still relevant today. I got a bunch of Plato books to read the source and better my study of him.
meqif's review
2.0
Good concept, mediocre execution.
The premise of this book is that somehow the philosopher Plato is visiting the 21st century, allowing for dialogues with our contemporaries. The chapters alternatively present dialogues in different settings, with different participants, and background information on Plato, Socrates, and the Ancient Greece (especially Athens). Add to all this a lot of footnotes, and you've got "Plato at the Googleplex".
However good the concept, the execution falls flat, imho. The dialogues take place in a cardboard fac-simile of our world, where a sedate Plato has conversations with characters that are mere caricatures defending strawman positions. I didn't find those chapters entertaining at all, much the contrary.
On the other hand, the expository chapters are much better executed, to the credit of the author, but I still found them to be meandering and repetitive at times. I found myself reading identical sentences in adjacent pages, and backtracking to double check that yes, I had just read the same thing a couple of minutes ago.
All in all, you're left with unsatisfying (or even grating) dialogue chapters, and informative chapters that, while interesting, could really use an editor. While it did spark some questions in my mind (well done, Dr. Goldstein!), I had to give up at half. To Dr. Goldstein's credit, I'm now much more likely to read Plato's works.
The premise of this book is that somehow the philosopher Plato is visiting the 21st century, allowing for dialogues with our contemporaries. The chapters alternatively present dialogues in different settings, with different participants, and background information on Plato, Socrates, and the Ancient Greece (especially Athens). Add to all this a lot of footnotes, and you've got "Plato at the Googleplex".
However good the concept, the execution falls flat, imho. The dialogues take place in a cardboard fac-simile of our world, where a sedate Plato has conversations with characters that are mere caricatures defending strawman positions. I didn't find those chapters entertaining at all, much the contrary.
On the other hand, the expository chapters are much better executed, to the credit of the author, but I still found them to be meandering and repetitive at times. I found myself reading identical sentences in adjacent pages, and backtracking to double check that yes, I had just read the same thing a couple of minutes ago.
All in all, you're left with unsatisfying (or even grating) dialogue chapters, and informative chapters that, while interesting, could really use an editor. While it did spark some questions in my mind (well done, Dr. Goldstein!), I had to give up at half. To Dr. Goldstein's credit, I'm now much more likely to read Plato's works.
emmaaagination's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
medium-paced
3.5
silvernfire's review against another edition
5.0
This was the happy surprise of choosing a book from my library ebook wishlist because it was available right then for reading, and discovering that I really liked it. From the title alone, I was expecting a discussion of Plato and philosophy mainly focusing on why they're still relevant in today's world, and yes, that's the thrust of the book. I enjoyed the explorations of various themes in Plato's work, which I'd call "introductory +": they're written for readers who aren't familiar with Plato's work, but they're meaty enough to give you something to wrestle with as you read them. After each of these chapters, Goldstein has written a fictional dialogue to bring the theme to life, so to speak. She imagines Plato, newly alive in the 21st century and fluent in English, going around the United States on a book tour and discussing these themes at stops along the way. I enjoyed both, but I appreciated the dialogues, even when they weren't as engaging, because they were a chance to see philosophy in action, and to get each theme better settled in my mind. And I'm obliged to Goldstein for her ability to explain why Athens was so threatened by Socrates' questioning, something that I'd never really been clear on.
So, people already familiar with Plato probably won't learn much from this book, and some people, familiar or not, may find the fictional dialogues too contrived to be readable. But I think it's a interesting and engaging work on popular philosophy and worth the read.
So, people already familiar with Plato probably won't learn much from this book, and some people, familiar or not, may find the fictional dialogues too contrived to be readable. But I think it's a interesting and engaging work on popular philosophy and worth the read.
neven's review against another edition
4.0
Like every good work of philosophy, this interpretation (defense?) of Plato for modern audiences is a slog in places, and it takes a while to get really good. (The defensive tone of the first chapter often puts me off in similar works; I'm not yet disagreeing with you!) But once the fictional dialogs get started, featuring Plato doing his best Socratic method in conversations with today's thinkers, it's a fun read, with many moments of a-ha! along the way. Neat.
ebkriley's review against another edition
3.0
I agree with the thesis that philosophy moves forward with the times, building upon itself. This book is a creative series of thought experiments featuring Plato, who is credited here with developing philosophy as we practice today.
nina_andreyevna's review against another edition
5.0
To be honest, I was always a pretty lousy philosophy student. To be ultra-honest, it might take me another read or two to get above 60% comprehension. But I loved this book - loved its tone, its conceit, and its portrait of Plato. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein is brilliant, and if I am a lousy philosophy student, at least I got to be hers.
noahb101's review against another edition
5.0
A wonderful look at philosophy, history, and life through the eyes and works of Plato with relevancy for today, walking through critiques, and giving us tools to live.