La república (edition 1966)

I'm not, as it happens, a Platonist. It's interesting to read The Republic -- it's worth doing, if you have any interest, particularly because Plato's ideas are so very very pervasive and have in fact endured and stuck in our society more than you'd think. The dialogues can be quite interesting; some of them are quite dramatic. But the logic to me is always dragged out too far and too long, and sometimes I just want to punch Socrates. I have major issues with Plato's analysis of art.

Which all adds up to: worth reading, but I wish I could've read a summary instead.

Edit: On reread, I found it somewhat more bearable. I still don't agree with the philosophy, but it's readable and the arguments are clear. I think some of them are more pedantic than accurate, but then we've established I think Plato's a twit. ( )

My re-reading of this for my university course has led me to the same conclusions I found when I first read it a couple of years back, except this time I am fortunate enough to have understood it better than last time. My conclusions being that Plato, and through him Socrates, was very intelligent, believed he was more intelligent than everyone else (no matter how many times he declared himself unwise) and very much loved to talk. Socrates, in particular, must have been very fond of the sound of his own voice.

You can't give a book that revolutionised philosophy any less than 3 stars, even if about 70% of it features many generalisations, jumping to bizarre conclusions, and claims without good reason. And yes, Plato and Socrates had some brilliant ideas - all the more brilliant because they came up with them first - but they don't measure up to today's version of "rational thinking". Good, but outdated. I suppose the best thing about their ideas was that they laid the foundations for the next 2000 years of Western philosophy and politics.

Gender Equality?

And, though hardly feminists, Socrates and Plato were some of the first to publicly suggest that education should be equal to both genders (apart from military training) and that women should have as large a political role as men, seeing as they make up half of society. Go early Greek gender equality!! Though I suppose the line "whining and crying as if they were but women" (or something to that effect) kind of pisses on that feminist bonfire. Oh well...

Justice?

So here's some of the reasons why [b:The Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1312499953s/30289.jpg|1625515] fails. Firstly, Socrates (the character) assumes that because one example demonstrates a certain type of relationship, then this idea can be applied to all. When he is arguing with Thrasymachus about justice, Thrasymachus says that justice is whatever the rulers decide it to be and that they use this power for their own good and the weaker (i.e. the subjects) get screwed over. Socrates then uses the example of a physician who is stronger than his patients but his agenda is only to help them. Well:

1) Even if a physician selflessly helps his patients, this does not prove that rulers have the best interests of their citizens in mind. There is not a naturally occurring relationship between the two.

2) As Thrasymachus goes on to point out, the physician is doing it for his own benefit because he is paid to do the job.

Stupidity & Contradictions

So then Socrates starts with the bullshit that doesn't get refuted because the author is on his side, of course. He says that the physician is divided into two roles: that of physician and that of moneymaker (yep). So, basically the two are separate and have nothing to do with each other... um, I beg to differ. You see? Some of the arguments are ridiculous. He also goes on to contradict himself later by stating that rulers do get a reward for ruling: money! If he had maintained his previous argument, then they should have done it anyway for the simple benefit of their subjects and moneymaking should be a separate thing entirely.

Agent vs. Act Virtue

Plato and Socrates talked a great deal about justice being an agent virtue and not just an act virtue. They believed that it wasn't good enough to act justly, you had to have a good soul as well. Makes sense until you get to where you judge people based on them having a good soul or not - and just how do you do that?

Person A: do you have a just soul?

Person B: oh yes.

Person A: Phew, let's be friends.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????​

And they have a very warped view of what makes a person good/just. "A just man values wisdom above all else"... does he? I imagine a person who likes to make friends with the super-smart individuals and disregard the rest to be a bit of an ass. Don't you? ( )

Rated: C+
The New Lifetime Reading Plan: Number 12

Guess I'm not a real fan of the Socratic dialogue. Seems like there could be more logic branches that the ones chosen. Anyhow, did appreciate three key concepts: 1) the uniqueness of the individual and the how that shapes ones vocation; 2) the cave and how perception shapes one's view of the truth; 3) The Myth of Er and the vision of how souls must choose their next lives ... "the unjust passing into the wild ..." and "... by the bank of the river of Indifference, whose water cannot be held in any vessel. All persons are compllled to drink a certain quantity of the water; but those who are not preserved by prudence drink more than the quantity, and each, as he drinks, forgets everything. When they had gone to rest and it was now midnight, there was a clap of thunder and an earthquake; and in a moment the souls were carried up to their birth, this way and that, like shooting stars." ( )

I despised this translation. I cringe every time I see it taking up space on my bookshelves. ( )

Edition: // Descr: xi, 130 p. 17.5 cm. // Series: Methuen's Classical Texts Call No. { 888 P69 12 } Series Edited by W.S. Maguinness Edited by D.J. Allan Contains Notes, Appendix, and Vocabulary. // //