Bloom's extensive footnotes and his interesting interpretive essay make this a pretty awesome edition of the Republic. ( )

Bought it for a class in Greek Civ. Can't beat it with a stick. ( )

Plato's The Republic is a staple in philosophical literature. The Allegory of the Cave, the story of a man finally reaching his enlightenment but wanting to return to the cave (or ignorance), has been exemplified in recent years: people remain ignorant of certain facts, and when confronted with them, they continue to enjoy the cave. This is not a very comforting thought. ( )

It's totalitarian, it's fearful, it's deceitful, it's violent, it censors the people and turn them into objects, its rhetorical, it advocates eugenics, and its egotististical--as Plato seems to ironically put Philosophers like himself in the master's throne. It's a horrific nightmare that betrays the author's master, Socrates. Why the five stars? Because it has managed to influence every nook and cranny of politics and its vicious underbelly-- it is essential for that reason. Anyone who has read The Republic knows the score. ( )

Allegory allegory everybody's coming to get me. i got out of the cave back in the mid 00's.

a classique as long as you don't take it literally and understand that Plato's aims are political here but at the same time he's making a statement about how the world, well the ideal city anyway, would be WITHOUT ART. Plato doesn't especially believe this is a good thing, because who wants to live in a perfect city anyway? ( )

I put off reading this book for quite a while because I had been given the impression that it was largely about politics, which I find particularly boring. As it turns out, this book isn't really about politics, but more about philosophy in general, with a good variety of things being discussed, from the nature of justice, goodness, how education should be done (not as boring as it sounds), and how the ideal state should be set up. It is fairly easy reading, as Plato does not use difficult words or complex reasoning, so would be an ideal introductory book for someone who has not read much philosophy before. I agree with a lot of what he writes, and his idealisations, as have other philosophers down the ages, who have been inspired too. A lot of it isn't politically correct, but he does have a lot of common sense, and was ahead of his time on things like equal rights for women. One of the things I like is his cynicism directed towards politicians, and people in general, but I think his reasoning can be simplistic and flawed in places. I don't think this would be worth reading again, but I am glad I have read it the once, and will probably look to acquire some of his dialogues before too long. This translation was by H.D.P. Lee. ( )

Plato is perhaps the most influential philosopher who has ever lived. Composed in Athens in about 375BC, The Republic is his most famous dialogue. Its discussion of the perfect city and the perfect mind laid the foundations for Western culture and, for over two thousand years, has been the cornerstone of Western philosophy. In this book, Simon Blackburn explains the judicial, moral and political ideas in the Republic and examines its influence on the modern world. He shows why, from St Augustine to Wordsworth and twentieth-century philosophers, Western thought has, and continues to be, a series of responses to one of the world's most important books.

I read this book as I was working on my thesis. It was the summer of 08. I thought this book was ok and I found much material that I can use in my thesis; reflection from journals on a life of a musician / teacher. As Plato was also a teacher I found that I disagreed with him a little. His questions that he asked were not open ended, but were meant for others to see "his" answer. I teach in a different way in which I ask opened ended questions, and use the answers from my students as a learning opporunity to later reflect on. Over all the book was a pleasure to read, even though it was difficult at times to understand. However, philsophy is always difficult to someone who is not a philosopher. ( )

I'd feel silly giving a rating to this essential work of Western culture. Suffice it to say, everyone should read it.

Greek Classic

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classic" books for the first time, then write reports on whether or not I think they deserve the label

Essay #11: The Republic, by Plato (~360 BC)

The story in a nutshell:
For those who don't know, the last 2,500 years of Western civilization can be roughly broken down into three eras, or "Ages;" the one we're in the middle of right now, the "Modern Age," actually began around the year 1400 or so with what we now call the "Renaissance," in which humanity slowly rediscovered the ideas and philosophies of ancient Greece and other so-called "enlightened societies" from the dawn of written history. (The era of those societies, then, is known as the "Classical Age;" the years between these two eras is known as the "Middle Age" or "Dark Age," in that these were the years such information was lost and forgotten in the first place.) Of all these thinkers and playwrights and architects and scientists of ancient Greece, then, perhaps none was more influential than a man named Socrates, who in our modern days we would call both an educator and philosopher; although he never actually wrote down any of his thoughts about life, his fanboy students did on a voracious basis, including a disciple named Plato who became the most famous of them during the Renaissance, because of so many of his original manuscripts making it through the chaotic times of the Dark Age*.

The Republic, for example, which would be better translated in our modern language to Society, is one of the more important of the dozens of Plato's books to still exist; it is one of the first books in Western culture, in fact, to tackle the very question of what a society is, of how to best organize one, and how to lay the long-term plans to make such a "republic" stable and violence-free. For example, the whole first part of the book tackles nothing else but what Socrates saw as the fundamental question behind all societies, that of "justice;" of how we as an organized group of people determine what exactly is "fair," what exactly is "right" and "wrong," and how we go about not only formally defining that but also enforcing it on a society-wide basis. That then gets the group talking about the creation of laws, which gets into the subject of who in a society is best qualified to write and determine such laws; this gets the reader into what most consider part 2 of the book, an examination of what we today would call not only lawyers but also politicians, philosophers and educators. (Plato and his peers, in fact, believed that the enlightened citizen should be all of these things at once; it's only in our modern times that we split them into four different professions.) This then gets us into part 3 of The Republic, a detailed examination of four popular types of society that were around at the time; this is what gets us our modern definitions of timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny, and of course the dozens of other government types that have since been invented by later philosophers.

And then finally, the way Socrates and his students actually discuss and arrive at these conclusions is through what is now known as the "Socratic Method," a fancy term for something most people will immediately understand; it's simply the process of teaching through talking and asking questions, guiding a student through a series of answers into discovering the wisdom of that topic on their own. Anytime a public school teacher discusses a subject out loud in a classroom, for example, then calls on a student to answer a question about the subject, that technically is the Socratic Method.

The argument for it being a classic:
Dude, it's a 2,200-year-old book that's still being read on a daily basis; if that's not the definition of a classic, fans say, then what is? Much more importantly than this, though, The Republic and other Classical books of philosophy virtually defined how nearly the entire western half of the planet currently conducts its business; all modern free-market representational democracies, after all, are fundamentally based on the ideas of the "Enlightenment" philosophers of the 1700s, and their ideas originally came from the ideas of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and others. There's nothing like reading the actual source material, fans of Classical literature will tell you, if you want a deep understanding of the principles guiding all of Western culture; this one single book, for example, laid the groundwork for how over half the world's governments now operate, making it the very definition of a book you should read before you die.

The argument against:
Of course, let's not forget the price of reading a 2,200-year-old book of philosophy, which is that much of it is out-of-date by now; in fact, there's an entire litany of terms in The Republic that a reader must put air quotes around each time they come across, with "democracy" for example not meaning nearly the same thing to Plato that it means to us, nor "republic," nor "equality," nor "freedom." Two thousand years is a long time to be able to tweak and build on a certain set of specific ideas, let's not forget; in fact, most of the incremental improvements we make to government anymore are based on principles from merely a half-century or so ago, which themselves were the product of the 75th or 80th generation of small improvements that have now been made over the centuries to Plato and Socrates' original ideas. Because of all this, critics say, a book like The Republic is certainly historically important, certainly a must-read for anyone devoting their life or career to philosophy or government or education, but not necessarily a book that the general populace should feel a need to read themselves.

My verdict:
So let me admit right off the bat what a p-ssy I am, and that in actuality I only read something like the first hundred pages of this book; because let's face it, we live in a much more sophisticated age than Plato did, with most of us for example deeply comfortable with the Socratic Method even by the time we're done with elementary school. The Republic itself is written in the same pace one would use when explaining something to a five-year-old child, which of course Plato and his co-horts had to do back then; it was a society that was barely literate, that had never tackled these subjects before, who hadn't even invented such words as "philosophy" yet or such concepts as universities. To tell you the truth, the most interesting thing about the book was in fact the modern 50-page introduction by Desmond Lee (I read the Penguin Classics version); like many other synopses that now exist, it does a much better job than the manuscript itself at explaining the historical context that informed these ideas, as well as the outdated terminology and the words that would be better used today. Although it was definitely a fascinating book to explore and learn more about, I can't say in all honesty that I would recommend tackling the actual manuscript; much better I think to read one of the modern analyses instead, and learn more about how the book has shaped society in the two thousand years since.

Is it a classic? Yes, but skip it anyway

*And in fact, the majority of the Classical Canon would be gone forever if had been up to the Westerners themselves, who were too busy slaughtering and raping and burning down each others' cities during the Medieval period to give much of a crap about a bunch of dusty ol' books; it was mostly the scholars of the Middle East who saved the majority of these manuscripts, by translating them into Arabic and incorporating them into their own great libraries at Alexandria (in modern Egypt), Babylon (in modern Iraq), and more. Bitter irony, I know, considering the way the majority of Middle East states have been treated by the majority of Western nations over the last couple of hundred years. ( )

Some interesting ideas and famous arguments. He seems to want to fit things (ideas) into his preconceived plan rather than having them make sense. I will have to read this again. ( )

The central question is 'What is Justice?' Plato proposes that the just man must be the product of the just state; which is ruled by philosophers.

I am just returned from one of my long absences, having been at my other home for five weeks past. Having more leisure there than here for reading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plato's republic. I am wrong however in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviest task work I ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up some of his other works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue. While wading thro' the whimsies, the puerilities, & unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this? How the soi-disant Christian world indeed should have done it, is a piece of historical curiosity. But how could the Roman good sense do it? And particularly how could Cicero bestow such eulogies on Plato? Altho' Cicero did not wield the dense logic of Demosthenes, yet he was able, learned, laborious, practised in the business of the world, & honest. He could not be the dupe of mere style, of which he was himself the first master in the world. With the Moderns, I think it is rather a matter of fashion and authority. Education is chiefly in the hands of persons who, from their profession, have an interest in the reputation and dreams of Plato. They give the tone while at school, and few in their after-years have occasion to revise their college opinions. But fashion and authority apart, and bringing Plato to the test of reason, take from him his sophisms, futilites, & incomprehensibilities, and what remains? In truth he is one of the race of genuine Sophists, who has escaped the oblivion of his brethren, first by the elegance of his diction, but chiefly by the adoption & incorporation of his whimsies into the body of artificial Christianity. His foggy mind, is for ever presenting the semblances of objects which, half seen thro' a mist, can be defined neither in form or dimension. Yet this which should have consigned him to early oblivion really procured him immortality of fame & reverence. The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from it's indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power & pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them; and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained. Their purposes however, are answered. Plato is canonised; and it is now deemed as impious to question his merits as those of an Apostle of Jesus. He is peculiarly appealed to as an advocate of the immortality of the soul; and yet I will venture to say that were there no better arguments than his in proof of it, not a man in the world would believe it. It is fortunate for us that Platonic republicanism has not obtained the same favor as Platonic Christianity; or we should now have been all living, men, women and children, pell mell together, like the beasts of the field or forest ... (TJ to John Adams, 5 July 1814)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?...

Plato's 'The Republic' is a timeless addition to any library. Molding philosophical ideals for centuries and influencing the creation of Political systems and ideologies that shape the modern world, 'The Republic' is a must for any serious philosopher.

This edition of the famous Jowett translation is introduced by Francis R. Gemme and has very well informed and lucidly written notes by David Masson. ( )

http://nhw.livejournal.com/901793.htm...

The core of the book is the presentation of the ideal state, in which government is conducted by a specially trained and bred class of philosophers/judges/warriors, but he diverges onto various other topics as well, in particular what the nature of their education should be.

Plato's insistence that education in philosophy (which for him includes all the sciences) would automatically produce gifted rulers must surely have seemed a bit naive even in his own day. And yet, of course, you have large parts of society constructed around this: Oxbridge classicists going into the City; the énarques in France; the Ivy League in the US. On the other hand, I observe that really intelligent people often make poor politicians; few of the skills of political leadership are intellectual. Plato would chide me that this is a problem with democracies and tyrannies, which I admit are the only polities I have particularly engaged with, and he explains why this is so in his chapters examining the problems of democracy and tyranny. I am not completely convinced though.

Striking that Plato insists on the equality of men and women, at least within his ruling classs; striking also that this is combined with a vehement advocacy of infanticide on eugenic grounds, and on the abolition of marriage in favour of a planned breeding programme. I wonder if any sf novelist has ever tried writing a society constructed along Plato's lines. There are echoes of it in a lot of places, but I can't think of any explicit example.

Of course, anyone who did try and construct a society along Plato's lines would run into the problems of the flaws and inconsistencies of the text. In particular, Plato's thoughts on the theory of forms are implicit in a lot of the text, but he is (apparently) rather unclear in his vocabulary so one is never completely sure what he is trying to get at, and the more specific he gets on basic philosophical contexts, the more adrift I felt. ( )

read it again, and again, and again, and again. treasure glauchons words, old sagely man. ( )

A note on the unending work of Political Philosophy: Republic, Statesman, Laws

A great source of perplexity to students beginning to study Plato's political philosophy is the question of how the three political dialogues -Republic, Statesman, Laws- hang together. In this brief note I would like to touch on how these three dialogues might be related. At first blush it might seem they have very little in common. Indeed, they do not even share a common primary speaker! The Republic has Socrates, the Statesman has the stranger from Elea, and the Laws has an Athenian Stranger as the primary speaker. We tend to think of the Republic as a revolutionary utopianism, the Statesman as a somewhat aloof, and occasionally absurd, philosophical description of politics, and the 'Laws' as a conservative paean to the traditional virtues. But is there a way of showing that these three dialogues (and the three speakers) do not merely contradict each other but rather correct each other thanks to Plato's allowing each dialogue to represent only a partial truth that we readers must put together with the others in order to see the whole Plato was aiming at? Let's start at the beginning:

Political philosophy truly begins with Plato. There is a crisis in Athens, various sophists and rhetoricians are spreading disrespect for the traditional gods and morality of Athens. In this manner, Athens reminds us of modernity and its fundamental disbelief in traditional values. In 'The Republic' Plato has Socrates (remember, Socrates is only another character in Plato's dialogues, and for all interpretive intents and purposes he is nothing more; the Platonic dialogues are not to be confused with biography) silence the rhetor Thrasymachus by demonstrating the chaos that ensues if everyone does as he pleases. That is, Thrasymachus learns from Clitophon and Polemarchus parroting his points (Book I) the consequences of his sophistry of power. The consequence being that rhetors and sophists will no longer be necessary (or employed) if everyone comes to think exactly as Thrasymachus does... Socrates then demonstrates to Thrasymachus that seductive rhetoric (and, of course, seductive rhetors) will have a role to play in the newly made Platonic Republic. Socrates, with his city built in speech, successfully seduces Glaucon, his brother, and the rest to accept a suitably modified 'city of pigs' - that is, a city in which all mind their own business. The 'city of pigs' (Book II, 372d), of course, is how Glaucon describes the moderate city that the philosopher Socrates is perfectly content to live in. The rest of the Republic, as I said, is little more than Socrates skillful seduction of Glaucon and the rest to accept a modified version of this moderate city. That is, they are to come to accept a city in which everyone minds his own business and has only one job, which is what Socrates' definition of justice demands. But is Socrates' moderate city, once modified, still moderate?

Another question that each of us must decide as we read this text; does Plato's Socrates deceive? - Oh my! At 389b-d Socrates tells us that the ruler of the City, and only he, may lie. Now, are Philosophers rulers? But the whole point of the Republic is to show that there can be no peace or justice until philosophers do indeed rule! Thus we are led to suspect that it is only the Philosopher-King who may tell 'noble lies'. But before philosophy actually rules must it not also tell lies to non-philosophers in oder to achieve the crown? Now, note that near the beginning of Book I (331e) Socrates asks if it is just to lie to the insane. But certainly, I hear many of you objecting, Socrates cannot possibly mean this of the splendid exceptional young men presently (i.e., in this dialogue) gathered around him. Indeed, later at 459c-d, Socrates seems to argue that the lying ruler is only a type of physician. Perhaps philosophical ruling is necessary only because of the sickness in the souls of non-philosophers? What!?! ...It really is quite remarkable how often the insane do not even know they are insane! Now, is the 'treatment' that the philosopher-physician Socrates demonstrates in this dialogue always and everywhere effective? No, for instance, there is nothing that either converts or silences Callicles in the 'Gorgias'. Thus Socrates, and his utopian revolution, fails to bring peace to Athens. (True, at the end of Plato's Symposium 'peace' finally reigns, but everyone has been seduced by words and sedated by drink.) Indeed, the historical Socrates is in fact understood by Athens to be part of the problem, and not a solution. Thus the later Plato elects to modify (or correct) the famous, garrulous Socrates with the silent, unknown Eleatic Stranger.

In Plato's 'Sophist' and 'Statesman' the taciturn Eleatic Stranger is forced to speak. Philosophy must battle Sophists and Statesmen over what can be said and what can be done. The Stranger demonstrates (i.e., acts out, not explains) the difficulty of seeing (and showing) the differences between Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher. Also, note that in the 'Sophist' he shows us how difficult it is to `know' as opposed to (and distinct from) making while in the Statesman he shows the impossibility of mixing (or weaving) flawed types of people into an unflawed whole. Since the weaving of flawed types into a supposedly 'unflawed' whole is an example of making the resulting 'unflawed whole' cannot, in fact, be an example of knowledge. This means that the Eleatic Stranger could not bring philosophy to the City any more than Socrates could. Thus no matter who rules the City Socrates is going to die... Also, always keep in mind that the dramatic date of the action of Sophist/Statesman coincides with the beginning of Socrates trial. Thus the Statesman ends with the Eleatic Stranger leaving the City behind and, in effect, saying to Socrates that there is nothing in the city, for us, but death. I would be remiss if I did not mention that in the 'Statesman', a rather short Platonic dialogue, there are more confusions, errors and repetitions than in any other dialogue that I am aware of. This is due to the fact that the Eleatic Stranger, unlike Socrates, views the political from the viewpoint of theoretical philosophy. From this viewpoint the political is madness itself! But does the Eleatic Stranger also tell 'noble lies'? In a sense yes, at 242b (in the Sophist) the Eleatic Stranger tells Theaetetus that everything he (i.e., the Eleatic Stranger) says is said out of regard for Theaetetus. But note that these philosophically 'noble' lies that the Eleatic Stranger is 'forced' to tell are not really said for the sake of the City; they are only necessitated by theory and pedagogy. The Eleatic Stranger doesn't seem to have the slightest interest in changing the City.

Now, be that as it may, we wonder what becomes of those that must continue to live in a world that condemns a Socrates to death? Plato rejects both the irresponsible silence of the Eleatic Stranger and the responsible silence that results from Socrates' murder by Athens. In 'The Laws' Plato has the Athenian Stranger (Socrates returned from the dead, according to Aristotle) teach the sovereignty of Nomos (law), while in Plato's 'Timaeus' Plato has Timaeus spin fabulous myths about creation and the God to enchant everyone. Thus Plato strove to save philosophy from the city and the city from philosophy by allowing philosophy to be seen revering what the city reveres - that is, laws and myths. But do note that the Laws dialogue ends with the concoction of the so-called 'Nocturnal Council' which is to have power to revise all the Laws (keep in mind that this must also mean laws regarding the gods) in the city whenever necessary. It is in this manner that the 'noble lies' philosophy tells are embodied in an institution hidden within the city itself. Thus the philosophical 'conservatism' of the aged Plato is in reality the founding document of the permanent revolution of Western Philosophy. Or, to put all this yet another way, the utopian revolution that was loudly proclaimed in the Republic has been replaced, in the Laws, by the machinations of the nocturnal council, which operates behind everyones back. Thus the 'philosophical conservatism' in the 'Laws', that has been so-often denounced by modern scholars, is in reality a call, but a call only made to to genuine philosophers, to permanent revolution!

There are those among us who are coming to believe that the 'History of Philosophy' is, in reality, nothing but the record of the maneuvers of our philosophical 'nocturnal council'. But this would be how the Platonic Revolution became perpetual philosophical reform; there is simply no end to it... ( )

I wonder if, when I read this a decade from now, I will better understand whatever Plato said. Is there really justice? Gah!
I'm sure this deserves more stars, but I was forced to read this and thus enjoyed it less. ( )

Plato's classic collection of Socratic dialogues, in which the teacher/philosopher Socrates teaches his students by means of asking questions which lead the student to a desired conclusion. I read parts of these through H.S. and college, found them a bit dry and tedious, although for all I know, back then this was leading-edge stuff. I don't recall if Plato's Allegory of the Cave is included here, but I don't think so. A ponderous classic of Western Thought. ( )

Plato’s Republic is widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of Western philosophy. Presented in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and three different interlocutors, it is an enquiry into the notion of a perfect community and the ideal individual within it. During the conversation other questions are raised: what is goodness; what is reality; what is knowledge? The Republic also addresses the purpose of education and the role of both women and men as ‘guardians’ of the people. With remarkable lucidity and deft use of allegory, Plato arrives at a depiction of a state bound by harmony and ruled by ‘philosopher kings’.

more @ http://toogood2read.blogspot.com/2006...

http://stuffnonsense.blogspot.com/200... ( )

Waterfield's version is an outstanding translation of the Republic. I had read this a few years ago in a "classic" translation, but was baffled by what seemed like a bizarre political theory and never thought about it any further. Waterfield's introduction and complete notes (like his translation of Herodotus) made Plato inspiring to me for the first time. I now realize what should have been obvious the first time around: the Republic is more than anything an invitation to thought, not the dogmatic philosophical treatise I thought I was reading before. This is a compelling examination about how an individual should live his life to the fullest. The issues that Plato raises and Waterfield clarifies in the book follow me around as I sit in my own house and walk in my own city. ( )

Wikipedia: Translation of the title--The original title of the work is the Greek word πολιτεία (see: politeia). "The Republic", which is the traditional English translation of the title, is somewhat of a misnomer, taken from Cicero's Latin (See also De re publica).
The Greek title Politeia is derived from the word "polis", which can roughly correspond to the modern term "city", or rather "city-state". Reflecting this, many languages translate Politeia as (The) State, including Dutch (De staat), German (Der Staat), Chinese, Japanese and Korean (国家). However, an ancient Greek politeia was much more than that. It was a way of life; so in actuality a proper translation would be 'how we live as people' (for a better understanding see Aristotle's Politics).
Within the work, Plato appears to use the word "politeia" more specifically in the meaning of form of government, at least according to Liddell and Scott in their Greek-English Lexicon.[1] This meaning of "politeia" is however not normally used for referring to the title of the work.
Sometimes Affairs of the Polis is offered as a literal translation of the title.
Topics:
Definition of justice
The question The Republic sets out to define is "what is justice?". Given the difficulty of this task, Socrates and his interlocutors are led into a discussion of justice in the city, which Socrates suggests may help them see justice in the person, but on a grander (and therefore easier to discuss) scale. Because of this, some critics (such as Julia Annas) interpret Plato's paradigm of a just state as an allegory for the paradigm of the just person. Justice is never defined satisfactorially to all participants throughout the dialogue. After Book V, the dialogue concentrates on convincing Glaucon and Adeimantus of Socrates' view of justice; however, the other characters remain silent throughout these books.
In the first book, three versions of justice come to be proposed and deemed inadequate. The sophist Thrasymachus states that justice is nothing but the power of the stronger. This seems counter-intuitive to Socrates, who begins to explore this concept of justice. Thrasymachus believes that the law of a polis, or justice, is nothing but the will of the ruler(s). Thrasymachus is aggressive in advancing this view, he says justice is the advantage of the man who is cunning enough to take power and institute his will upon the people. As a result of this, those who break the law become powerful, eventually rising to the position of rulers in society. Socrates accepts this view, but asks whether the ruler who makes a mistake to his advantage, institutes a law or policy that lessens his well-being, is still a ruler according to the sophist's definition. Sophists made their living in Greece by teaching young men how to rule successfully, and thus Socrates exploits this fact, indirectly undermining Thrasymachus' own definition of justice. This results in a turning point in the dialogue, for Thrasymachus blushes; afterwards, he is silent, as Socrates begins to teach the young men.
Beginning in Book II, a definition of justice is furthered as the working of a person in the role for which you are best suited, and for not interfering in the work of others. This conception of justice, striking to the modern reader, is closely linked to the Greek conception of dike, the just order. This definition of justice leads to a social structure radically different from most previous and subsequent states. Nevertheless, a reader must always be aware that Plato is writing a dialogue in which the dramatic quality has a weight. Socrates, in fact, proceeds in a very different manner than in Book I, where he attacks Thrasymachus's view of justice directly. In response to the two views of injustice and justice presented by Glaucon and Adeimantus, he claims incompetence, but feels it would be impious to leave justice in such doubt.
The argument that is advanced by Glaucon is based on the legend of Gyges who discovered a ring that gave him the power to become invisible.Glaucon uses this story to argue for the thesis that no man would be just if he had the opportunity of doing injustice with impunity. With the power to become invisible, Gyges is able to enter the royal court unobserved, seduce the queen, murder the king, and take over the kingdom. Glaucon argues that the just as well as the unjust man would do the same if they had the power to get away with injustice exempt from punishment. The only reason that men are just and praise justice is out of fear of being punished for injustice. The law is a product of compromise between individuals that agree not to do injustice to others if others will not do injustice to them. Glaucon says that if they had the power to do injustice without fear of punishment they would be mad to enter into such an agreement. Glaucon uses this argument to challenge Socrates to defend the position that the just life is better than the unjust life. Socrates says that there is no better topic to debate. In fact, Socrates (368a-c) does not challenge the arguments, but proposes to create a thought-experiment to better define and thus defend justice. Much of the Republic is a response to Glaucon’s argument.
Socrates defines justice as "working at that which he is naturally best suited," and "to do one's own business and not to be a busybody" (433a-433c) and goes on to say that justice sustains and perfects the other three cardinal virtues, Temperance, Wisdom, and Courage and that justice is the cause and condition of their existence. A result of this conception of justice separates people into three types; that of the soldier, that of the producer, and that of a ruler. If a ruler can create just laws, and if the warriors can carry out the orders of the rulers, and if the producers can obey this authority, then a society will be just.
In terms of why it is best to be just rather than unjust for the individual, Plato prepares an answer in Book IV consisting of three main arguments. Plato says that a tyrant's nature will leave him with "horrid pains and pangs" and that the typical tyrant engages in a lifestyle that will be physically and mentally exacting on such a ruler. Such a disposition is in contrast to the truth-loving philosopher king, and a tyrant "never tastes of true freedom or friendship". The second argument proposes that of all the different types of person, only the Philosopher is able to judge which type of ruler is best since only he can see the Form of the Good. Thirdly, Plato argues, "Pleasures which are approved of by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest". In sum, Plato argues that only philosophical pleasure is the only true pleasure since other pleasures experienced by others are simply a neutral state free of pain.
The form of government:
Socrates points out the human tendency to corruption by power and thus the road from timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny: ruling should be left to philosophers, the most just and therefore least susceptible to corruption. That "good city" is depicted as being governed by philosopher-kings; disinterested persons who rule not for their personal enjoyment but for the good of the city-state (polis). The paradigmatic society which stands behind every historical society is hierarchical, but social classes have a marginal permeability; there are no slaves, no discrimination between men and women. In addition to the ruling class of guardians (phulakes) which abolished riches there is a class of private producers (demiourgoi) be they rich or poor. A number of provisions aim to avoid making the people weak: the substitution of debilitating music, poetry and theatre by a universal educational system for men and women -- a startling departure from Greek society. These provisions apply to all classes, and the restrictions placed on the philosopher-kings and the warriors are much more severe than those placed on the producers, because the rulers must be kept away from any source of corruption.
In Books V-VI the abolishment of riches among the guardian class (not unlike Max Weber's bureaucracy) leads controversially to the abandonment of the typical family, and as such no child may know his or her parents and the parents may not know their own children. Socrates tells a tale which is the "allegory of the good government". No nepotism, no private goods. The rulers assemble couples for reproduction, based on breeding criteria. Thus, stable population is achieved through eugenism and social cohesion is projected to be high because familial links are extended towards everyone in the City. Also the education of the youth is such that they are taught of only works of writing that encourage them to improve themselves for the state's good, and envision (the) god(s) as entirely good, just, and the author(s) of only that which is good.
In Books VII-X stand Plato's criticism of the forms of government. It begins with the dismissal of timocracy, a sort of authoritarian regime, not unlike a military dictatorship. Plato offers a psychoanalytical explanation of the "timocrat" as one who saw his father humiliated by his mother and wants to vindicate "manliness". The third worst regime is oligarchy, the rule of a small band of rich people, millionaires that only respect money. Then comes the democratic form of government, and its susceptibility to being ruled by unfit "sectarians" demagogues. Finally the worst regime is tyranny, where the whimsical desires of the ruler became law and there is no check upon arbitrariness.
Theory of universals:
See also Problem of universals, Plato's allegory of the cave and The Forms

The Republic contains Plato's Allegory of the cave with which he explains his concept of The Forms as an answer to the problem of universals.
The allegory of the cave is an attempt to justify the philosopher's place in society as king. Plato imagines a group of people who have lived in a cave all of their lives, chained to a wall in the subterrane so they cannot see outside nor look behind them. Behind these prisoners is a constant flame that illuminates various statues that are moved by others, which cause shadows to flicker around the cave. When the people of the cave see these shadows they realise how imitative they are of human life, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows such as either "dog" or "cat". The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to seeing reality, according to Plato.
Plato then goes on to explain how the philosopher is a former prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constituitive of reality at all. He sees that the fire and the statues which cause the shadows are indeed more real than the shadows themselves, and therefore apprehends how the prisoners are so easily deceived. Plato then imagines that the freedman is taken outside of the cave and into the real world. The prisoner is initially blinded by the light. However when he adjusts to the brightness, he eventually understands that all of the real objects around him are illuminated by the sun (which represents the Form of the Good, the form which has caused the brightness). He also realises it is the sun to which he is indebted to for being able to see the beauty and goodness in the objects around him. The freedman is finally cognisant that the fire and statues in the cave were just copies of the real objects in the world.
The prisoner's stages of understanding correlate with the levels on the divided line that Plato imagines. The line is divided into what is the visible world, and what the intelligible world is, with the divider being the Sun. When the prisoner is in the cave, he is obviously in the visible realm that receives no sunlight, and outside he comes to be in the intelligible realm.
The shadows in the cave that the prisoners can see correspond to the lowest level on Plato's line, that of imagination and conjecture. Once the prisoner is freed and spots the fire's reflection onto the statues which causes the shadows in the cave, he reaches the second stage on the divided line, and that is the stage of belief, as the freedman comes to believe that the statues in the cave are real as can be. On leaving the cave however the prisoner comes to see objects more real than the statues inside of the cave, and this correlates with the third stage on Plato's line as being understanding. The prisoner is therefore able to ascribe Forms to objects as they exist outside of the cave. Lastly, the prisoner turns to the sun which he grasps as the source of truth, or the Form of the Good, and this last stage, named as dialectic, is the highest possible stage on the line. The prisoner, as a result of the Form of the Good, can begin to understand all other forms in reality.
Allegorically, Plato reasons that the freedman is the philosopher, who is the only person able to discern the Form of the Good, and thus absolute goodness and truth. Since the philosopher is the only one able to recognise what is truly good, and only he can reach the last stage on the divided line, only he is fit to rule society according to Plato.

I read this on the train from Venice to Vienna so I have very positive memories. All the ethnic cleansing stuff is a bit weird, but if one strips away the moral repulsion about 'choosing' a society, the ideas are very very interesting! ( )