Scan barcode
doggerdog's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
”If the whole soul follows its wisdom-loving, philosophical part… and is free from internal faction, the result is that each part is just, performing its proper role in all respects…”
Using the paradigm of the ideal city governed by wisdom, philosophy, and justice, Plato (through Socrates’ voice) successfully unravels what makes a soul truly just. This paradigm is largely employed within the first half of the text (the part I found the most enjoyable) before removing the concepts discussed from a city, and placing them upon the human soul in the second half.
The application of this technique supports the observation made by Christopher Rowe in the introduction of my copy. Rowe suggests that Plato’s writing was likely intended for a broad audience, not just those who are experts in the field of philosophy. this technique as well as his constant allusions to characters of myth and Epics allowed the contemporary audience to grasp these difficult concepts posed by Socrates by relating them to cultural figures. Even today, this style is incredibly useful for those of us familiar with these characters, and provides us an insight into just how much of an impact they had on how Greek society viewed the world.
Socrates’ ideal society is one governed by the functionalist mode of thinking. Everyone does the jobs they were born to do and does not stray from this path as their purpose is to perform for the betterment of society. Through intense acts of isolating socialisation, Socrates ensures these behaviours and beliefs are culturally ingrained from birth to avoid any protests as these only occur when ignorance is lifted. Pleasures and desires do not exist, everything including the women and children are shared so there is no attachment formed with anything besides one’s role.
However, in doing this he creates a city devoid of nuance and individuality, that hardly anyone reading finds appealling (although with some socialisation, mayhaps we shall change our tune). But the city isn’t important, this isn’t the point Socrates is trying to make. It is just a paradigm after all. He knows the city won’t come to fruition, but hopes the changes to one’s soul will.
We must Govern our soul through the functionalist approach. Ensuring that the forms within enact their intended roles, whilst following the path of wisdom and thus leading us to a just and good life no matter the circumstances (As seen in the final pages with the tale of Er’s experience in the afterlife).
Be just not for the prestige it brings, but the goodness it brings to your soul. An important thing to consider in the age of social media activism… but I won’t go into that 😮💨
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.