What do you think?
Rate this book
Диалози #5
Laws. Index to the Writings of Plato
This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
754 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 361
471 people are currently reading
5831 people want to read
About the author
Plato
5,116 books8,550 followersPlato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews
October 29, 2015
And then, as time went on, the poets themselves introduced the reign of vulgar and lawless innovation. They were men of genius, but they had no perception of what is just and lawful in music; raging like Bacchanals and possessed with inordinate delights—mingling lamentations with hymns, and paeans with dithyrambs; imitating the sounds of the flute on the lyre, and making one general confusion; ignorantly affirming that music has no truth, and, whether good or bad, can only be judged of rightly by the pleasure of the hearer. And by composing such licentious works, and adding to them words as licentious, they have inspired the multitude with lawlessness and boldness, and made them fancy that they can judge for themselves about melody and song. And in this way the theatres from being mute have become vocal, as though they had understanding of good and bad in music and poetry; and instead of an aristocracy, an evil sort of theatrocracy has grown up. For if the democracy which judged had only consisted of educated persons, no fatal harm would have been done; but in music there first arose the universal conceit of omniscience and general lawlessness;— freedom came following afterwards, and men, fancying that they knew what they did not know, had no longer any fear, and the absence of fear begets shamelessness. For what is this shamelessness, which is so evil a thing, but the insolent refusal to regard the opinion of the better by reason of an over–daring sort of liberty?
Yes, I'm talking about you, Goodreads.
Yes, I'm talking about you, Goodreads.
May 16, 2012
Despite having been assigned it in my Classical Political Thought class, I only in the past few days finished reading Plato's Laws (apologies to Dr. Walsh). Which is a bit unfortunate, since it's bloody fantastic.
I confess to having had a bit of a "meh" relationship with Plato in the past. I mean, the number of his dialogues that I've actually enjoyed (as opposed to just kind of thinking they're okay) is pretty small- basically the Ion and maybe bits of Epistle VII. Sure, I've read and discussed what are usually counted as his greatest works (Gorgias, Meno, Apology, and of course The Republic) and even taught them in class (I prefer teaching the Crito, since it's short and a quick read for the students). But this was the first book where Plato and I really clicked. It was the first one of his that I've read where I found myself wanting to read more, to find out where the argument was going, and to see what the next step in his argument would be. Part of the reason for this may have been a translation issue (I read the Penguin Classics translation of The Laws done by Trevor Saunders- an excellently done work with good footnotes and introductory summaries), and part of it may have been the fact that all the other times I've read Plato it was for class. I can't say for sure what the reason is, just that this has ended up being a book that I truly enjoyed reading and look forward to (someday) exposing to students.
The way I've regularly had The Laws explained to me is that it's Plato's admission of failure. In undergrad, it was covered in a Greek civilization course where the prof (for whom I have the deepest respect) suggested that Plato had given up on trying to get anyone to care about the virtuous philosophical life and turned his final hopes on getting them at least to be good because the law said they had to. In the aforementioned graduate course, the professor (for whom I also have the deepest respect) suggested that The Laws is more of an appendix to The Republic, wherein the "Philosopher Kings" who exist at the center of the ideal state in The Republic have withdrawn from society, leaving behind only the laws they crafted. (I suspect this view is traceable back to a philosopher named Eric Voegelin, for whom I have slightly less respect but whom I occasionally enjoy reading.)
Having finally read the book myself, I think I disagree bit with both of these position. Certainly it's true that Plato is issuing some kind of passionate call here- after all this was his last and longest work. But I think a better way to read The Laws is as a second shot at The Republic. In The Republic, Plato had argued that people ought to live virtuous lives within virtuous states. The same argument is at work here. But! In The Republic, when asked how such a state could ever come about, Plato gives a mix of reasons including (but not limited to): education, hard work, divine intervention, leadership by a philosophical elite, some form of natural selection, and a life of continually increasing and unrestrained virtue. In other words, all of the ways in which people expressly do not want to live. How does Plato argue his state will come about in The Laws? By playing games, drinking, a life free from all but the most moderate work load, and enough sex to keep the state populated. Same goals, different means. It's true that there are differences between The Republic and The Laws (perhaps most noticeable is the presence of families in The Laws which had been outlawed in The Republic in lieu of communal wives and children), but these differences are very much organizational differences rather than differences in the philosophical goal of virtue.
Such, at least, is my read on the relationship between The Republic and The Laws- they're not really two radically different books, they've just got two different audiences. In a sense, I think it could be argued that the former was written as a guide for the Philosopher Kings, while the latter was written for at least the Guardian class, if not for the rest of the citizen body...
The biggest major modern issue with The Laws (at least as of the writing of the translator's Introduction in 1970) is the question of whether or not Plato was a totalitarian. This goes back to a book by Karl Popper written in the 1930s called The Open Society and Its Enemies . Popper argued that any philosophy that teaches moral absolutism will eventually lead to totalitarianism, since moral absolutes are non-negotiables. As someone who clearly believes in moral absolutes, Plato must therefore be a totalitarian. Variations on this theme have followed Popper, but all are loosely tied back into his original thesis.
The translator takes a fairly middle path through the book, pointing out places where Plato seems to be totalitarian, and places where he is fairly liberal in his outlook (the absolute equality of women, for example).
I think the problem is we're asking an anachronistic question. Were we to say to Plato "are you a totalitarian or not?" His reply would be "huh?" That is to say, no such category existed in the Ancient World. In one sense, all ancient societies were totalitarian. There was no distinction between the individual and the state. After all, an ancient would argue, states are made up of bodies of individuals. So when you do something wicked, that makes the state that much worse. And when you do something virtuous, that makes the state that much better. With that being the case, why wouldn't the state have the authority to regulate even the most minute details of daily life, should it be necessary for preserving the virtue and dignity of the society? This would not be seen as either repressive or intolerable. Really, the only two political categories of major concern to ancients in any meaningful sense were 1) who was allowed to participate? and 2) what was the goal of the government? Any combination of answers to these questions could be more or less "totalitarian" by modern standards, that simply wasn't something they were interested in.
And, this reflection is going on probably longer than it should. After all, I haven't even said much about the book itself. I think this might have to turn into at least one more post, if only to keep the length of things manageable...
So, the short version is: this is an excellent book that raises all kinds of great questions (and gives great answers) to questions like: what is the role of education in society and individual life? What should be the goal of legislation? Who watches the watchmen? (seriously, that's one of them) What is the role of the elderly in society? And so on...
Highly recommended.
I confess to having had a bit of a "meh" relationship with Plato in the past. I mean, the number of his dialogues that I've actually enjoyed (as opposed to just kind of thinking they're okay) is pretty small- basically the Ion and maybe bits of Epistle VII. Sure, I've read and discussed what are usually counted as his greatest works (Gorgias, Meno, Apology, and of course The Republic) and even taught them in class (I prefer teaching the Crito, since it's short and a quick read for the students). But this was the first book where Plato and I really clicked. It was the first one of his that I've read where I found myself wanting to read more, to find out where the argument was going, and to see what the next step in his argument would be. Part of the reason for this may have been a translation issue (I read the Penguin Classics translation of The Laws done by Trevor Saunders- an excellently done work with good footnotes and introductory summaries), and part of it may have been the fact that all the other times I've read Plato it was for class. I can't say for sure what the reason is, just that this has ended up being a book that I truly enjoyed reading and look forward to (someday) exposing to students.
The way I've regularly had The Laws explained to me is that it's Plato's admission of failure. In undergrad, it was covered in a Greek civilization course where the prof (for whom I have the deepest respect) suggested that Plato had given up on trying to get anyone to care about the virtuous philosophical life and turned his final hopes on getting them at least to be good because the law said they had to. In the aforementioned graduate course, the professor (for whom I also have the deepest respect) suggested that The Laws is more of an appendix to The Republic, wherein the "Philosopher Kings" who exist at the center of the ideal state in The Republic have withdrawn from society, leaving behind only the laws they crafted. (I suspect this view is traceable back to a philosopher named Eric Voegelin, for whom I have slightly less respect but whom I occasionally enjoy reading.)
Having finally read the book myself, I think I disagree bit with both of these position. Certainly it's true that Plato is issuing some kind of passionate call here- after all this was his last and longest work. But I think a better way to read The Laws is as a second shot at The Republic. In The Republic, Plato had argued that people ought to live virtuous lives within virtuous states. The same argument is at work here. But! In The Republic, when asked how such a state could ever come about, Plato gives a mix of reasons including (but not limited to): education, hard work, divine intervention, leadership by a philosophical elite, some form of natural selection, and a life of continually increasing and unrestrained virtue. In other words, all of the ways in which people expressly do not want to live. How does Plato argue his state will come about in The Laws? By playing games, drinking, a life free from all but the most moderate work load, and enough sex to keep the state populated. Same goals, different means. It's true that there are differences between The Republic and The Laws (perhaps most noticeable is the presence of families in The Laws which had been outlawed in The Republic in lieu of communal wives and children), but these differences are very much organizational differences rather than differences in the philosophical goal of virtue.
Such, at least, is my read on the relationship between The Republic and The Laws- they're not really two radically different books, they've just got two different audiences. In a sense, I think it could be argued that the former was written as a guide for the Philosopher Kings, while the latter was written for at least the Guardian class, if not for the rest of the citizen body...
The biggest major modern issue with The Laws (at least as of the writing of the translator's Introduction in 1970) is the question of whether or not Plato was a totalitarian. This goes back to a book by Karl Popper written in the 1930s called The Open Society and Its Enemies . Popper argued that any philosophy that teaches moral absolutism will eventually lead to totalitarianism, since moral absolutes are non-negotiables. As someone who clearly believes in moral absolutes, Plato must therefore be a totalitarian. Variations on this theme have followed Popper, but all are loosely tied back into his original thesis.
The translator takes a fairly middle path through the book, pointing out places where Plato seems to be totalitarian, and places where he is fairly liberal in his outlook (the absolute equality of women, for example).
I think the problem is we're asking an anachronistic question. Were we to say to Plato "are you a totalitarian or not?" His reply would be "huh?" That is to say, no such category existed in the Ancient World. In one sense, all ancient societies were totalitarian. There was no distinction between the individual and the state. After all, an ancient would argue, states are made up of bodies of individuals. So when you do something wicked, that makes the state that much worse. And when you do something virtuous, that makes the state that much better. With that being the case, why wouldn't the state have the authority to regulate even the most minute details of daily life, should it be necessary for preserving the virtue and dignity of the society? This would not be seen as either repressive or intolerable. Really, the only two political categories of major concern to ancients in any meaningful sense were 1) who was allowed to participate? and 2) what was the goal of the government? Any combination of answers to these questions could be more or less "totalitarian" by modern standards, that simply wasn't something they were interested in.
And, this reflection is going on probably longer than it should. After all, I haven't even said much about the book itself. I think this might have to turn into at least one more post, if only to keep the length of things manageable...
So, the short version is: this is an excellent book that raises all kinds of great questions (and gives great answers) to questions like: what is the role of education in society and individual life? What should be the goal of legislation? Who watches the watchmen? (seriously, that's one of them) What is the role of the elderly in society? And so on...
Highly recommended.
July 24, 2021
"في القرن الحادي والعشرين، كان هناك اهتمام متزايد بين الفلاسفة بدراسة القوانين. لقد صمدت العديد من الأفكار الفلسفية في القوانين أمام اختبار الزمن ، مثل المبدأ القائل بأن السلطة المطلقة تفسد بشكل مطلق وأنه لا يوجد شخص معفي من حكم القانون. تشمل التطورات المهمة الأخرى في القوانين التركيز على النظام المختلط، ونظام العقوبات المتنوع ، وسياسته تجاه النساء في الجيش ، ومحاولته في اللاهوت العقلاني. ومع ذلك ، اعتبر أفلاطون أن فكرته الأصلية هي أن القانون يجب أن يجمع بين الإقناع والإكراه. من أجل إقناع المواطنين باتباع القانون القانوني ، لكل قانون مقدمة تقدم أسبابًا تجعل من مصلحة المرء أن يطيع. يأتي الإكراه في شكل عقوبة مرتبطة بالقانون إذا كان الإقناع يفشل في تحفيز الامتثال."
القوانين آخر ما كتب افلاطون، أو بمعنى أدق كان أحد آخر حوارات أفلاطون، والذي امتاز بطوله. لم يحظى بالدرس والاشتغال من قبل المهتمين بفلسفة افلاطون مقارنةً بالجمهورية، حتى وقتٍ قريب، في السنوات الأخيرة.
المادة حوار فلسفي -سياسي مطعم بلثغة اجتماعية، بين ثلاثة رجال مسنين: أثيني لم يذكر اسمه، وإسبرطي يُدعى ميجالوس، وكريتاني يُدعى كلينياس. الحوار يتم فيه طرح ونقاش الدستور والتشريعات والقوانين التي ستأسس لبناء مدينة أو دولة ماجنيزيا. ويشمل كل ما يتعلق ببناء النظم الاجتماعية لحياة الفرد والجماعة في المجتمع، ومسائل التربية والتنشئة والتعليم، والأخلاق، وقضايا الحكم / الحاكم والمحكوم، وقوانين تنظيم الدولة/ التشريعات/ العقوبات. وقضايا العمل والعمال. كما تم طرح في النقاش مواضيع شتى وبشكل مكثف؛ دارت حول: علم النفس ، واللاهوت ، ونظرية المعرفة ، والميتافيزيقيا.
ومن الملاحظ في القوانين هو سيادة سلطة الدين ( اللاهوت) في رسم الدستور والقوانين المعنية بمدينة ماجنيزيا. والرغبة الملحة في بناء مدينة مثالية تسودها قيم العدالة والفضيلة. وهو ما يخبر الكثير عن فلسفة أفلاطون وفكره السياسي في رسم الدولة.
القوانين آخر ما كتب افلاطون، أو بمعنى أدق كان أحد آخر حوارات أفلاطون، والذي امتاز بطوله. لم يحظى بالدرس والاشتغال من قبل المهتمين بفلسفة افلاطون مقارنةً بالجمهورية، حتى وقتٍ قريب، في السنوات الأخيرة.
المادة حوار فلسفي -سياسي مطعم بلثغة اجتماعية، بين ثلاثة رجال مسنين: أثيني لم يذكر اسمه، وإسبرطي يُدعى ميجالوس، وكريتاني يُدعى كلينياس. الحوار يتم فيه طرح ونقاش الدستور والتشريعات والقوانين التي ستأسس لبناء مدينة أو دولة ماجنيزيا. ويشمل كل ما يتعلق ببناء النظم الاجتماعية لحياة الفرد والجماعة في المجتمع، ومسائل التربية والتنشئة والتعليم، والأخلاق، وقضايا الحكم / الحاكم والمحكوم، وقوانين تنظيم الدولة/ التشريعات/ العقوبات. وقضايا العمل والعمال. كما تم طرح في النقاش مواضيع شتى وبشكل مكثف؛ دارت حول: علم النفس ، واللاهوت ، ونظرية المعرفة ، والميتافيزيقيا.
ومن الملاحظ في القوانين هو سيادة سلطة الدين ( اللاهوت) في رسم الدستور والقوانين المعنية بمدينة ماجنيزيا. والرغبة الملحة في بناء مدينة مثالية تسودها قيم العدالة والفضيلة. وهو ما يخبر الكثير عن فلسفة أفلاطون وفكره السياسي في رسم الدولة.
June 28, 2020
Ovo je najobimnije i posljednje napisano Platonovo djelo, a uz to je i jedan od rijetkih dijaloga u kome glavni lik nije Sokrat. Umjesto njega, ovdje se pojavljuje anonimni Atinjanin, koji svoju sliku idealne zajednice prezentuje jednom Krićaninu i jednom Lakedemonjaninu.
"Zakoni" se (ne) mogu posmatrati kao produžetak "Države". Platon je određena gledišta ovdje značajno produbio, dok je na nekim drugim mjestima odstupio od svojih ranijih uvjerenja. Dok se "Država" više bavi teorijskim konstituisanjem idealne zajednice na osnovama ideje pravičnosti, u "Zakonima" je akcenat na njenom praktičnom ostvarenju: sve je do u tančine razjašnjeno - kako brojnim pravnim regulativama, tako i onim nepisanim, božanskim. (ako vam smetaju Platonova shvatanja bliska totalitarizmu, onda dobro udahnite vazduh prije nego što uzmete "Zakone" u ruke, jer je Platon u tom pogledu ovdje otišao najdalje, zašavši duboko u sferu privatnog života.)
Ipak, ako Platona prvenstveno čitate kao učitelja mišljenja, onda svi nedostaci takve vrste postaju efemerni - broj metafizičkih uzleta je ovdje, doduše, znatno manji, pa iz tog razloga dajem četvorku.
Neke zanimljivosti:
- Platon je na polju estetike anticipirao učenja jednog novovjekovnog filozofa:
"Uživanje je, dakle, mjerodavno za prosuđivanje samo onoga što kod prikazivanja ne pruža nikakvu korist, ni istinu ni sličnost, a tako isto ni štetu, nego ima svoju svrhu samo u tome što se javlja kao propratna pojava..."
- Satrijani i Bora Dugić ne bi bili po Platonovom ukusu: "Nužno se nameće uvjerenje da je veoma prostačko sve ono što pokušava da se dopadne isključivo svojom brzinom, spretnim izvođenjem i životinjskim glasovima, tako da se sviranje u gitaru ili frulu upotrebljava i onda kad nije povezano s igrom i pjevanjem. I kad se i jedno i drugo od toga upotrebljava odvojeno, samo za sebe, vidi se da je to samo potpuni nedostatak ukusa i zapravo sama opsjenarska vještina."
- muškarac koji se ne oženi do tridesetpete mora plaćati porez i gubi građanska prava. (Platon se inače nije ženio)
- muškarcima je zabranjeno samozadovoljavanje: "...i da ne razbacuju sjeme po stijenama i kamenju gdje ono nikada ne može uhvatiti korijenja niti se razviti prema svojoj prirodi."
- žena ima pravo ubiti svog silovatelja!
- za mito i korupciju kazna je smrtna!
"Zakoni" se (ne) mogu posmatrati kao produžetak "Države". Platon je određena gledišta ovdje značajno produbio, dok je na nekim drugim mjestima odstupio od svojih ranijih uvjerenja. Dok se "Država" više bavi teorijskim konstituisanjem idealne zajednice na osnovama ideje pravičnosti, u "Zakonima" je akcenat na njenom praktičnom ostvarenju: sve je do u tančine razjašnjeno - kako brojnim pravnim regulativama, tako i onim nepisanim, božanskim. (ako vam smetaju Platonova shvatanja bliska totalitarizmu, onda dobro udahnite vazduh prije nego što uzmete "Zakone" u ruke, jer je Platon u tom pogledu ovdje otišao najdalje, zašavši duboko u sferu privatnog života.)
Ipak, ako Platona prvenstveno čitate kao učitelja mišljenja, onda svi nedostaci takve vrste postaju efemerni - broj metafizičkih uzleta je ovdje, doduše, znatno manji, pa iz tog razloga dajem četvorku.
Neke zanimljivosti:
- Platon je na polju estetike anticipirao učenja jednog novovjekovnog filozofa:
"Uživanje je, dakle, mjerodavno za prosuđivanje samo onoga što kod prikazivanja ne pruža nikakvu korist, ni istinu ni sličnost, a tako isto ni štetu, nego ima svoju svrhu samo u tome što se javlja kao propratna pojava..."
- Satrijani i Bora Dugić ne bi bili po Platonovom ukusu: "Nužno se nameće uvjerenje da je veoma prostačko sve ono što pokušava da se dopadne isključivo svojom brzinom, spretnim izvođenjem i životinjskim glasovima, tako da se sviranje u gitaru ili frulu upotrebljava i onda kad nije povezano s igrom i pjevanjem. I kad se i jedno i drugo od toga upotrebljava odvojeno, samo za sebe, vidi se da je to samo potpuni nedostatak ukusa i zapravo sama opsjenarska vještina."
- muškarac koji se ne oženi do tridesetpete mora plaćati porez i gubi građanska prava. (Platon se inače nije ženio)
- muškarcima je zabranjeno samozadovoljavanje: "...i da ne razbacuju sjeme po stijenama i kamenju gdje ono nikada ne može uhvatiti korijenja niti se razviti prema svojoj prirodi."
- žena ima pravo ubiti svog silovatelja!
- za mito i korupciju kazna je smrtna!
April 19, 2021
The one Plato work that makes for accessible, organised, reading
I have the greatest respect for Plato’s work and what it has meant for Western thought and Western culture. To my chagrin, Plato and the Socratic dialogues have proven rage-inducing to go through, if you are like me the sort who:
* sees an argument that looks strange
* picks it apart, because believes character is flippant
* works on refuting it for 5 minutes
* realises author is dead and can’t answer
* does a Tasmanian Devil impersonation
However, here we are dealing with a lecture, rather than a debate, which will hopefully make it easier to digest the ideas.
If not, this book might still be for you, as a coherent, comprehensive layout for main governance issues or for the mental exercise of ‘coding’ a fictional Polis from scratch. It is very rewarding.
I have the greatest respect for Plato’s work and what it has meant for Western thought and Western culture. To my chagrin, Plato and the Socratic dialogues have proven rage-inducing to go through, if you are like me the sort who:
* sees an argument that looks strange
* picks it apart, because believes character is flippant
* works on refuting it for 5 minutes
* realises author is dead and can’t answer
* does a Tasmanian Devil impersonation
However, here we are dealing with a lecture, rather than a debate, which will hopefully make it easier to digest the ideas.
If not, this book might still be for you, as a coherent, comprehensive layout for main governance issues or for the mental exercise of ‘coding’ a fictional Polis from scratch. It is very rewarding.
June 26, 2021
The tone of the Laws is quite humble at the beginning. Gone is the borderline Communist utopia of the Republic. Indeed, when Plato speaks of the individual soul, he is quite good. It's only when he gets into politics that things go wrong. Unfortunately, in Plato's worldview (and for much of human history), you can't really separate private and public.
The initial argument is quite good: as reason guides the soul, so must the rational man guide the state. Something must reign in the passions. Unfortunately, Plato's legislator sees every situation as an excuse for more legislation. There is literally no end to it.
I can't help but think of his legislator as a busybody bureaucrat.
The initial argument is quite good: as reason guides the soul, so must the rational man guide the state. Something must reign in the passions. Unfortunately, Plato's legislator sees every situation as an excuse for more legislation. There is literally no end to it.
I can't help but think of his legislator as a busybody bureaucrat.
April 7, 2018
The Laws of Plato is not entirely laws. It is not entirely anything, really. It seems to be a nice collection of aphoristic sayings, wise and pithy truths, and overall a collection of legal requirements for a city whose regulation is the main focus of this work. Designing a city can be difficult, and whereas The Republic was largely metaphorical and none too practical, pragmatism is the design for this book. In addition to designing laws, Plato goes step-by-step and designs the arguments one should have to devise said laws, and even to devise said arguments to devise said laws (this may seem recursive on first glance, but in some cases the justification was indeed the punishment, as in the justification for the law itself would most likely have been the appropriate logical foundation of the purification rites, in addition to incarceration).
It is dry. It is bland. But so was the Old Testament, and at times, this can seem very reminiscent of that old law-based text as well. With very key differences and very key similarities; one major key difference was the lack of enforcement of principal on loans. Another key difference was the allowance for anger for expiation of crimes. If committed in anger, it is curious to note, this hypothetical Cretan utopia would NEVER punish with death, unless a matricide or patricide. The Judaic law of course, would have had this individual pay for his crimes through the avenger in blood: Talion. Likewise, the former point, regarding the principal on loans is something enforceable in the Old Testament as well as many other lawbooks throughout the ages, whereas in Plato's Laws it is simply relegated to the lender. As if to say that the lender is the one who has the responsibility to make sure he is lending to a responsible individual. And if the borrower doesn't repay, it is the lender's fault. This wouldn't work obviously unless you had a society which was religious-based. The overall banishment of usury from both books simply makes this sort of mentality apparent: greed, fundamentally, is not compatible with an ideal utopia, and is therefore a sin.
Overall, Laws hearkens back to a time when expansion through Greek colonies was rampant, and reminds one even of the incipient days of America, when the Constitution had to be constructed for the benefit of civil society. This magnificent work of art deals with ideas and philosophies that are in every other Platonic book: it deals with the very argument of the existence of God. And Genesis, is the one key similarity with the Old Testament that strikes me, believe it or not. It is thought, says the Athenian stranger, that the core idea of the immortality of the soul precedes all material things. Because of this fact, there is a prime force from which springs all life. In the union of soul and body, proceed all sorts of sinful things, and from which spring ideas which are harmful to humanity. Plato makes the argument for predestination as well through this, by simply stating that God(s) have placed things where they will for their pleasure, seeing that in the end virtue (Good) triumphs over vice (Evil). Because of this, the struggle is made entertaining, even though there is more bad than good. Because of an eventuality.
The strange capricious, chaotic, and overall aphoristic argument of the Nietzscheans regarding will and exertion on reality is even dealt with here. Simply the fact that we can create ourselves or in part create reality is completely denied and shot down with Chapter X of this beautiful work of art. Everything is well placed, everything divine, and if everything is followed a utopia will proceed. Clearly even this ridiculously dry, litigious work is not the exact outline for a city, however it is the backbone from which a utopia springs. And whereas The Republic is a way for a man to live his life, it could be said The Laws are the way for a republic to live its life.
It is dry. It is bland. But so was the Old Testament, and at times, this can seem very reminiscent of that old law-based text as well. With very key differences and very key similarities; one major key difference was the lack of enforcement of principal on loans. Another key difference was the allowance for anger for expiation of crimes. If committed in anger, it is curious to note, this hypothetical Cretan utopia would NEVER punish with death, unless a matricide or patricide. The Judaic law of course, would have had this individual pay for his crimes through the avenger in blood: Talion. Likewise, the former point, regarding the principal on loans is something enforceable in the Old Testament as well as many other lawbooks throughout the ages, whereas in Plato's Laws it is simply relegated to the lender. As if to say that the lender is the one who has the responsibility to make sure he is lending to a responsible individual. And if the borrower doesn't repay, it is the lender's fault. This wouldn't work obviously unless you had a society which was religious-based. The overall banishment of usury from both books simply makes this sort of mentality apparent: greed, fundamentally, is not compatible with an ideal utopia, and is therefore a sin.
Overall, Laws hearkens back to a time when expansion through Greek colonies was rampant, and reminds one even of the incipient days of America, when the Constitution had to be constructed for the benefit of civil society. This magnificent work of art deals with ideas and philosophies that are in every other Platonic book: it deals with the very argument of the existence of God. And Genesis, is the one key similarity with the Old Testament that strikes me, believe it or not. It is thought, says the Athenian stranger, that the core idea of the immortality of the soul precedes all material things. Because of this fact, there is a prime force from which springs all life. In the union of soul and body, proceed all sorts of sinful things, and from which spring ideas which are harmful to humanity. Plato makes the argument for predestination as well through this, by simply stating that God(s) have placed things where they will for their pleasure, seeing that in the end virtue (Good) triumphs over vice (Evil). Because of this, the struggle is made entertaining, even though there is more bad than good. Because of an eventuality.
The strange capricious, chaotic, and overall aphoristic argument of the Nietzscheans regarding will and exertion on reality is even dealt with here. Simply the fact that we can create ourselves or in part create reality is completely denied and shot down with Chapter X of this beautiful work of art. Everything is well placed, everything divine, and if everything is followed a utopia will proceed. Clearly even this ridiculously dry, litigious work is not the exact outline for a city, however it is the backbone from which a utopia springs. And whereas The Republic is a way for a man to live his life, it could be said The Laws are the way for a republic to live its life.
June 3, 2022
Platonic dialogues are a lot less fun when Socrates isn't around.
June 29, 2016
I'll open myself up for criticism and confess that I did not actually finish Plato's Laws. I made it all the way through Book VIII, then I started skimming, and when that proved just as boring, I went and looked at the secondary literature about the work. (There's a great summary at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in an entry titled "Plato on Utopia," available HERE.
Plato's Laws is a work written by Plato in his later years, when he's an old man. Interestingly, Plato had been, prior to writing The Laws, an advisor to a tyrant in Sicily whose rule Plato was supposed to guide. Instead, Plato landed in prison. Before the problem with the tyrant, Plato had written in his younger days The Republic, where he had imagined a just society to be the mirror of the just soul, where wise kings rule spirited soldiers and pleasure-seeking working classes just as people justly control their souls by having their wisdom control their motivations and desires.
There is nothing in The Laws approximating this tripartite division of the soul or of the just society like that in The Republic. Nor is there a robust sense of the ideas commonly associated with Plato, like his view that knowledge is a soul's recollection of what was already imprinted on it before the time of birth, although some views, like his view that what we tend to experience of reality are crude approximations of eternal forms, is retained, even if expressed a bit differently. The later Plato is concerned with how the human condition came to be as it is today, and how we can recover that earlier sense. For the later Plato, then, there is a more perfect and eternal order but it might have been, for all he or anyone knows, a really existing condition.
The later Plato believes that once upon a time God governed the world and human beings lived a harmonious life, without need or strong desire. People lived and shared everything in common. Then as people began to control more of their own affairs, they began to create inequality and need and be ruled by their strong desires. Plato writes in The Laws, contra The Republic, that the most perfect society was like this society: where people live in harmony and share everything in common. But Plato does not think we can recover that society and so proposes the second most ideal society, the details of which are about as enjoyable as eavesdropping on a city planner.
I invite you to read the following passage and see if you have the patience for reading pages and pages of the following sorts of descriptions:
It is clear what the message of Plato's Laws is. The purpose of this just society Plato is creating has the sole purpose of being as most near to what it was like in the early days when people were ruled by God and when the people were the most virtuous. The aim of this society is to cultivate the highest virtue in people. The citizens are to learn through gymnastics, music, persuasion about life matters, and a strong education how to be virtuous, and to have their virtue maintained. Unfortunately, so much of the trivia of the dialogue do not seem to be necessarily related to this. It is hard to, for example, see how the placement of temples with respect to the marketplace will make a society less just, or the people less capable of virtue. At the very least it's difficult to see why such things need to be spelled out. Maybe they do. Could be my lack of imagination.
Plato's Laws is a work written by Plato in his later years, when he's an old man. Interestingly, Plato had been, prior to writing The Laws, an advisor to a tyrant in Sicily whose rule Plato was supposed to guide. Instead, Plato landed in prison. Before the problem with the tyrant, Plato had written in his younger days The Republic, where he had imagined a just society to be the mirror of the just soul, where wise kings rule spirited soldiers and pleasure-seeking working classes just as people justly control their souls by having their wisdom control their motivations and desires.
There is nothing in The Laws approximating this tripartite division of the soul or of the just society like that in The Republic. Nor is there a robust sense of the ideas commonly associated with Plato, like his view that knowledge is a soul's recollection of what was already imprinted on it before the time of birth, although some views, like his view that what we tend to experience of reality are crude approximations of eternal forms, is retained, even if expressed a bit differently. The later Plato is concerned with how the human condition came to be as it is today, and how we can recover that earlier sense. For the later Plato, then, there is a more perfect and eternal order but it might have been, for all he or anyone knows, a really existing condition.
The later Plato believes that once upon a time God governed the world and human beings lived a harmonious life, without need or strong desire. People lived and shared everything in common. Then as people began to control more of their own affairs, they began to create inequality and need and be ruled by their strong desires. Plato writes in The Laws, contra The Republic, that the most perfect society was like this society: where people live in harmony and share everything in common. But Plato does not think we can recover that society and so proposes the second most ideal society, the details of which are about as enjoyable as eavesdropping on a city planner.
I invite you to read the following passage and see if you have the patience for reading pages and pages of the following sorts of descriptions:
The temples are to be placed all round the agora, and the whole city built on the heights in a circle, for the sake of defence and for the sake of purity. Near the temples are to be placed buildings for the magistrates and the courts of law; in these plaintiff and defendant will receive their due, and the places will be regarded as most holy, partly because they have to do with the holy things: and partly because they are the dwelling-places of holy Gods: and in them will be held the courts in which cases of homicide and other trials of capital offenses may fitly take place. As to the walls, Megillus, I agree with Sparta in thinking that they should be allowed to sleep in the earth, and that we should not attempt to disinter them; there is a poetical saying, which is finely expressed, that “walls ought to be of steel and iron, and not of earth; besides, how ridiculous of us to be sending out our young men annually into the country to dig and to trench, and to keep off the enemy by fortifications, under the idea that they are not to be allowed to set foot in our territory, and then, that we should surround ourselves with a wall, which, in the first place, is by no means conducive to the health of cities, and is also apt to produce a certain effeminacy in the minds of the inhabitants, inviting men to run thither instead of repelling their enemies, and leading them to imagine that their safety is due not to their keeping guard day and night, but that when they are protected by walls and gates, then they may sleep in safety; as if they were not meant to labour, and did not know that true repose comes from labour, and that disgraceful indolence and a careless temper of mind is only the renewal of trouble. But if men must have walls, the private houses ought to be so arranged from the first that the whole city may be one wall, having all the houses capable of defence by reason of their uniformity and equality towards the streets. The form of the city being that of a single dwelling will have an agreeable aspect, and being easily guarded will be infinitely better for security. Until the original building is completed, these should be the principal objects of the inhabitants; and the wardens of the city should superintend the work, and should impose a fine on him who is negligent; and in all that relates to the city they should have a care of cleanliness, and not allow a private person to encroach upon any public property either by buildings or excavations. Further, they ought to take care that the rains from heaven flow off easily, and of any other matters which may have to be administered either within or without the city. The guardians of the law shall pass any further enactments which their experience may show to be necessary, and supply any other points in which the law may be deficient...I quoted such a full passage to give you a sense for the sheer tedium of reading this dialogue. This dialogue, incidentally, reads the list like a dialogue of any of Plato's dialogues I have read. There are lengthy passages like this that go on for passages with hardly any of the interlocutors asking questions or making comments.
It is clear what the message of Plato's Laws is. The purpose of this just society Plato is creating has the sole purpose of being as most near to what it was like in the early days when people were ruled by God and when the people were the most virtuous. The aim of this society is to cultivate the highest virtue in people. The citizens are to learn through gymnastics, music, persuasion about life matters, and a strong education how to be virtuous, and to have their virtue maintained. Unfortunately, so much of the trivia of the dialogue do not seem to be necessarily related to this. It is hard to, for example, see how the placement of temples with respect to the marketplace will make a society less just, or the people less capable of virtue. At the very least it's difficult to see why such things need to be spelled out. Maybe they do. Could be my lack of imagination.
March 28, 2020
(One has to read The Laws AFTER reading The Republic) in order to see the Huge deference between them. The Laws is basically a correction and adding to what was missing in The Republic which was written decades before The Laws.
It shows in the book how Plato became wiser with age, more passionate and serious about explaining the importance of Education, Arts, Culture and Religion in the virtue of citizens and sitting up very strict legislations for all of that. It also shows how he hated unwritten laws regulating family affairs so he wrote about that as will.
Virtue, virtue, virtue
you will see allot about virtue, because basically in Plato's opinion (without virtue a country WILL fall into pieces).
In my opinion, The Republic was more fun and much less difficult to read.
I loved the book, it showed a different part of Plato, BUT only because of the curfew I was able to finish it in less than three months haha.
I would definitely recommend this book to people who love philosophy :)
It shows in the book how Plato became wiser with age, more passionate and serious about explaining the importance of Education, Arts, Culture and Religion in the virtue of citizens and sitting up very strict legislations for all of that. It also shows how he hated unwritten laws regulating family affairs so he wrote about that as will.
Virtue, virtue, virtue
you will see allot about virtue, because basically in Plato's opinion (without virtue a country WILL fall into pieces).
In my opinion, The Republic was more fun and much less difficult to read.
I loved the book, it showed a different part of Plato, BUT only because of the curfew I was able to finish it in less than three months haha.
I would definitely recommend this book to people who love philosophy :)
April 3, 2019
There is a popular saying in the film world, that directors spend their whole careers making the same film over and over again. Plato spent his whole career working out the ideas laid out in Laws. Some of it is in the Republic, most of it can be found in other dialogues. Stray observation; why couldn’t he just ask Athenian stranger what his name is, and give him a bit of dignity rather than be forever nameless?
September 14, 2015
This mammoth work is one of Plato's most important, and not very widely read books. There's good reason for this, while there are important passages in this, the work is ultimately like reading an Ancient Greek version of Leviticus. In other words, it's really... really boring.
Read
December 19, 2013To the young man , reading Plato is like suicide or killing time ,specially if you have in your mind another great philosophers to read , e.g. Schopenhauer ,Heidegger and not to mention Wittgenstein. Just because I promised myself to read all his works , it does not mean that I will complete this Dialongue. Its too long to be called a dialogue , fortunately Plato died before completing this uninteresting one .
June 9, 2023
The Laws is interesting mainly for its methodological reflections. It is sadly lacking in the playful wit that makes Plato fun to read.
March 11, 2018
I liked this more than the Republic. In fact, I'm not sure why the latter, and not this is Plato's signature work, though maybe I'm just outing myself as a pleb. It does revisit a lot of the same themes. The absence of Socrates is jarring, even to a casual reader, but I didn't mind. The Athenian, the Cretan, and the Spartan get straight to the point. There's no hair splitting framing device about the meaning of justice.
Magnesia will be located in Crete, and will strictly try to maintain its population of 5040, which is not an arbitrary number. It has some divisibility properties, which would help with the management of the state, and Plato really wants to keep the population steady. Even if there's a plague he warns caution regarding who you ought to let in to replace those lost citizens.
The government will in true Platonic fashion, care for and thoroughly manage its population from cradle to grave, though it's good to see him abandon the scheme of abolishing the family. The end of course shall be virtue, and hence we get a lot of discussion, not just on legalisms, but on human nature, and the latter is really my favorite part of the discourse.
There are two main themes that everything seems to spring from here, obviously not just in this Platonic dialogue. You will see shades of his other works here. The two themes are the division of human nature into the rational, the spiritual, supreme over the material and the sensual, but also the existence of a separate and objective world of ideas.
There is a lot of discussion of mastering one's passions. Gluttony and lust ought to yield before reason. Such an ideal will strengthen the citizens, it will help them prevent from ending up “slaves of those who are able to endure amid pleasures.” We ought to practice mortification, and guided by reason search for decent middle point between enjoyment and discipline: “he who draws from [pleasure and pain] where and when, and as much as he ought is happy.”
Plato actually views virtue as the most important element of education and as idealistic as it is I have to agree with this. We may end up in a wide variety of stations in life, but isn't the most important thing to remain a good person amidst it all?
I found his view of art fascinating, as he absolutely believes that beauty is objective, and not only that, but tied to virtue as well. He's not a big fan of avant-garde musicians. “the poets themselves introduced the reign of vulgar and lawless innovation. They were men of genius, but they had no perception of what is just and lawful in music; raging like Bacchanals and possessed with inordinate delights… and making one general confusion; ignorantly affirming that music has no truth, and, whether good or bad, can only be judged of rightly by the pleasure of the hearer” This nonsensical music is nothing more than then the sensual overwhelming reason “the instigation of lawless pleasures” Art is a window into the world of ideas, into the divine, and as it is rational, it will have rules, but it will still be pleasant, the most sublime type of pleasant, but he doesn't emphasize this enough . Praising Egypt for keeping its statues the same for ten thousand years wasn't the best approach in my opinion. Naturally, he proscribes censorship.
As we recall from the Republic, the principles one finds in the individual, one can also apply to the state, and just as the individual must practice moderation so should the state as a whole, both extreme poverty, and extreme wealth are going to cause harm, and overwhelm the role of reason in the individual. “the war is against two enemies- wealth and poverty one of whom corrupts the soul of man with luxury, while the other drives him by pain into utter shamelessness”
As the divine plays such a central role in his philosophy, Plato laments that religion is fading away. “Now that a certain portion of mankind do not believe at all in the existence of the Gods...[or don't believe they are of any consequence]” even oaths ought to be abolished, but this is not the ideal situation. He spends a chapter trying to prove the existence of God, rather passionately. “Who can be calm when he is called upon to prove the existence of the God? Who can avoid hating and abhorring the men who are and have been the cause of this argument”
I would say the main flaws are that Plato, as typical of reformers, overestimated the power of government to bring his ideal society into reality. He believes the incest taboo is derived from custom and not from biology. The story of the dragon's teeth is proof that the state can indoctrinate its citizens into any belief the statesman finds useful. Through the use of education, Plato thinks that his citizens will be able to unite virtue and pleasure, to accommodate themselves to proper manners of art, and be repulsed by the abstractions which offend him so much. The young will not be allowed to question the laws, written works will be censored, and even impiety will be punished.
It's nice to see a bit of self awareness here. “He who exhibits a pattern of that at which he aims, should in nothing fall short of the fairest and truest; and that if he finds any part of this work impossible of execution he should avoid and not execute it, but he should contrive to carry out which is nearest and most akin to it.” It's still a long ways away however. Magnesia is best as an ideal to be aimed at, but I don’t think it can be successfully imposed.
Magnesia will be located in Crete, and will strictly try to maintain its population of 5040, which is not an arbitrary number. It has some divisibility properties, which would help with the management of the state, and Plato really wants to keep the population steady. Even if there's a plague he warns caution regarding who you ought to let in to replace those lost citizens.
The government will in true Platonic fashion, care for and thoroughly manage its population from cradle to grave, though it's good to see him abandon the scheme of abolishing the family. The end of course shall be virtue, and hence we get a lot of discussion, not just on legalisms, but on human nature, and the latter is really my favorite part of the discourse.
There are two main themes that everything seems to spring from here, obviously not just in this Platonic dialogue. You will see shades of his other works here. The two themes are the division of human nature into the rational, the spiritual, supreme over the material and the sensual, but also the existence of a separate and objective world of ideas.
There is a lot of discussion of mastering one's passions. Gluttony and lust ought to yield before reason. Such an ideal will strengthen the citizens, it will help them prevent from ending up “slaves of those who are able to endure amid pleasures.” We ought to practice mortification, and guided by reason search for decent middle point between enjoyment and discipline: “he who draws from [pleasure and pain] where and when, and as much as he ought is happy.”
Plato actually views virtue as the most important element of education and as idealistic as it is I have to agree with this. We may end up in a wide variety of stations in life, but isn't the most important thing to remain a good person amidst it all?
I found his view of art fascinating, as he absolutely believes that beauty is objective, and not only that, but tied to virtue as well. He's not a big fan of avant-garde musicians. “the poets themselves introduced the reign of vulgar and lawless innovation. They were men of genius, but they had no perception of what is just and lawful in music; raging like Bacchanals and possessed with inordinate delights… and making one general confusion; ignorantly affirming that music has no truth, and, whether good or bad, can only be judged of rightly by the pleasure of the hearer” This nonsensical music is nothing more than then the sensual overwhelming reason “the instigation of lawless pleasures” Art is a window into the world of ideas, into the divine, and as it is rational, it will have rules, but it will still be pleasant, the most sublime type of pleasant, but he doesn't emphasize this enough . Praising Egypt for keeping its statues the same for ten thousand years wasn't the best approach in my opinion. Naturally, he proscribes censorship.
As we recall from the Republic, the principles one finds in the individual, one can also apply to the state, and just as the individual must practice moderation so should the state as a whole, both extreme poverty, and extreme wealth are going to cause harm, and overwhelm the role of reason in the individual. “the war is against two enemies- wealth and poverty one of whom corrupts the soul of man with luxury, while the other drives him by pain into utter shamelessness”
As the divine plays such a central role in his philosophy, Plato laments that religion is fading away. “Now that a certain portion of mankind do not believe at all in the existence of the Gods...[or don't believe they are of any consequence]” even oaths ought to be abolished, but this is not the ideal situation. He spends a chapter trying to prove the existence of God, rather passionately. “Who can be calm when he is called upon to prove the existence of the God? Who can avoid hating and abhorring the men who are and have been the cause of this argument”
I would say the main flaws are that Plato, as typical of reformers, overestimated the power of government to bring his ideal society into reality. He believes the incest taboo is derived from custom and not from biology. The story of the dragon's teeth is proof that the state can indoctrinate its citizens into any belief the statesman finds useful. Through the use of education, Plato thinks that his citizens will be able to unite virtue and pleasure, to accommodate themselves to proper manners of art, and be repulsed by the abstractions which offend him so much. The young will not be allowed to question the laws, written works will be censored, and even impiety will be punished.
It's nice to see a bit of self awareness here. “He who exhibits a pattern of that at which he aims, should in nothing fall short of the fairest and truest; and that if he finds any part of this work impossible of execution he should avoid and not execute it, but he should contrive to carry out which is nearest and most akin to it.” It's still a long ways away however. Magnesia is best as an ideal to be aimed at, but I don’t think it can be successfully imposed.
August 7, 2020
Really excellent and I hope more people read this - the contemporary editor noted in his preface, in a very diplomatic way, that this book consisted of the meanderings of an old man. This man is Plato! This book should be paid attention to!
March 6, 2021
As Leis são um presente paupável proveniente de um espécie de Jerusalém Celeste da Psique denominada A República.
O equilíbrio das virtudes é que transforma a sabedoria, a temperança, a justiça e a coragem uma única, mas a rainha é a sabedoria.
O equilíbrio das virtudes é que transforma a sabedoria, a temperança, a justiça e a coragem uma única, mas a rainha é a sabedoria.
May 20, 2025
Physically read.
What a book.
A prequel to The Republic to further show how necessary philosophy and such was? Perhaps. A sequel to The Republic to reflect Plato had given up on the idea of a naturally virtuous society? Perhaps. A hugely long book where Plato is just clowning on Athens and showing us the danger (and hilarity) of rhetoric and its power to give life to things we always (secretly) thought? Most likely - in my opinion.
Can’t believe I actually read this book.
What a book.
A prequel to The Republic to further show how necessary philosophy and such was? Perhaps. A sequel to The Republic to reflect Plato had given up on the idea of a naturally virtuous society? Perhaps. A hugely long book where Plato is just clowning on Athens and showing us the danger (and hilarity) of rhetoric and its power to give life to things we always (secretly) thought? Most likely - in my opinion.
Can’t believe I actually read this book.
November 14, 2012
The 3-star rating is an average of the ratings I would have given each of the twelve Books of the Laws if they were read separately.
Some flaws in the text:
- The Athenian Stranger leaves open very important facets of legislation, while thoroughly legislating much less pertinent ones.
- Heavy burden placed on assumptions of many kinds to do with human nature.
- Inherent counter-productive legislation (ie: legislation with a view to friendship, but allowing - nay, promoting - citizens to denounce one another)
However, I think these flaws are needed, as they represent the great difficulty in embarking on man's greatest journey: creating an entirely new political order. Plato's Laws is an essential read for lovers of political theory and philosophy, as it is one of the few books that deals with the aforementioned task.
On a side note, I especially loved the Book on punishments and the Book on gods, even as an atheist.
Some flaws in the text:
- The Athenian Stranger leaves open very important facets of legislation, while thoroughly legislating much less pertinent ones.
- Heavy burden placed on assumptions of many kinds to do with human nature.
- Inherent counter-productive legislation (ie: legislation with a view to friendship, but allowing - nay, promoting - citizens to denounce one another)
However, I think these flaws are needed, as they represent the great difficulty in embarking on man's greatest journey: creating an entirely new political order. Plato's Laws is an essential read for lovers of political theory and philosophy, as it is one of the few books that deals with the aforementioned task.
On a side note, I especially loved the Book on punishments and the Book on gods, even as an atheist.
September 22, 2019
Being an exposition of laws for a new city/colony called Magnesia, this dialogue includes three persons, an Athenian, a Spartan, and a Cretan who being a politician and lawgiver has been given this law making responsibility. This conversation which is one of the few Platonic dialogues excluding Socrates, occurs during a walk/pilgrimage to the cave of Zeus. Topics discussed include aspects of political and epistemological thought, ethics, theology, and metaphysics, and within the twelve books discussions on education, virtue and morality, geography, voting, music, physical training, religion, punishment, and the legislative are put forward, with the existing laws of Athens and Sparta being considered... Though some views are quite dated, the dialogue is a rather interesting read for anyone interested in historical, past political and philosophical thought...
November 3, 2021
Plato is surely the greatest philosopher, but, as with all ideological utopian thinking, his conception of perfection, is to modern ears, more like a dystopia. I guess the state, in its completeness, cannot be formally set up a priori, it has to be grown with a degree of organicity. That is, it has to be a developmental and iterative process, learning from and building upon each previous step. The Laws reads a bit like the laws of the Bible or the Quran, with various conceptions of when citizens shall be given the death penalty, to give one example. Also, Plato has ridiculous ideas of the precise number of citizens, 5040 to be precise, for some unmentioned reason. Furthermore, he has ideas of how the Guardians are to be the rulers of culture, with certain types of music being banned, only allowing those who, according to them, aligns the citizens with the idealistic morals of the state.
One can understand Plato's reasoning, had you not known the disastorous effects of instantiating such absolutes. But today we do know, and we know that it does not work. The state cannot have all-encompassing control, even if this sounds nice in the abstract. Partly, this is due to the nature of the human soul, which longs, and which must, be able to express its boundless creativity without limits. Pure creation is dangerous, yet invaluable, and the state should be flexible enough to persist with and along individual expression.
Most of the arguments in the book take a similar form. Plato attempts to make a case for the nature of human beings, and proposes strict laws which, supposedly, the best compatible with that nature. Both for the bettering of the state, and of the bettering of the individual. I do not expect ancient politics to hold up to modern ears, how could they? However, it is interesting that other philosophical ideas, partly metaphysics, partly virtue ethics, does hold up. Hence one might conclude that there is something more complex and undefinable about statesmanship and politics, that the intersubjective dynamics between people are more complicated than the individual.
Furthermore, the laws is not as beautifully written as some of Plato's other works, maybe because its quite different in its structure, as it does not feature Socrates, as all the other work does.
What rescues the book though, is the brilliant discussion on atheism versus theism, which might as well have been written today, except the usage of more simple physicalist terminology. Instead of atoms and quaks, Plato speaks of higher order "stuff", like earth, clay and the rest. The structure and the context of the argument is, however, absolutely identical. Which was hilarious and enjoyable to discover. One side argues for the "randomness and coming-together" of this basic stuff, somehow arranging itself into living beings out of dead matter. The other side argues for the opposite, saying that animated life must have necessarily been designed by a creator and so forth. The Guardians, as the wise old men, are the ones arguing against the atheisti naive youth, attempting to lay out the way in which the theistic position imposes itself on you once you get older, the neccesity of having a supernatural order which stands above the individual as a moral judge, how this wouldn't work if it was grounded naturally as opposed to supernaturally etc. Good stuff.
One can understand Plato's reasoning, had you not known the disastorous effects of instantiating such absolutes. But today we do know, and we know that it does not work. The state cannot have all-encompassing control, even if this sounds nice in the abstract. Partly, this is due to the nature of the human soul, which longs, and which must, be able to express its boundless creativity without limits. Pure creation is dangerous, yet invaluable, and the state should be flexible enough to persist with and along individual expression.
Most of the arguments in the book take a similar form. Plato attempts to make a case for the nature of human beings, and proposes strict laws which, supposedly, the best compatible with that nature. Both for the bettering of the state, and of the bettering of the individual. I do not expect ancient politics to hold up to modern ears, how could they? However, it is interesting that other philosophical ideas, partly metaphysics, partly virtue ethics, does hold up. Hence one might conclude that there is something more complex and undefinable about statesmanship and politics, that the intersubjective dynamics between people are more complicated than the individual.
Furthermore, the laws is not as beautifully written as some of Plato's other works, maybe because its quite different in its structure, as it does not feature Socrates, as all the other work does.
What rescues the book though, is the brilliant discussion on atheism versus theism, which might as well have been written today, except the usage of more simple physicalist terminology. Instead of atoms and quaks, Plato speaks of higher order "stuff", like earth, clay and the rest. The structure and the context of the argument is, however, absolutely identical. Which was hilarious and enjoyable to discover. One side argues for the "randomness and coming-together" of this basic stuff, somehow arranging itself into living beings out of dead matter. The other side argues for the opposite, saying that animated life must have necessarily been designed by a creator and so forth. The Guardians, as the wise old men, are the ones arguing against the atheisti naive youth, attempting to lay out the way in which the theistic position imposes itself on you once you get older, the neccesity of having a supernatural order which stands above the individual as a moral judge, how this wouldn't work if it was grounded naturally as opposed to supernaturally etc. Good stuff.
January 30, 2024
في هذه المحاورة نزل افلاطون من ذرى جمهوريته الفاضلة ليلامس أرض الواقع بالقوانين والتي وجد أنها لتطبيقها عليه أن يتخلى عن مثال الجمهورية الفاضلة ويجعل المثال هدفا للسعي لا نقطة انطلاق.
يرجح أن هذه آخر محاورات أفلاطون وقد كتبها في سن متقدم وهو ما جعل آرائه فيها أكثر واقعية وإن لم تخل من مثاليته الشمولية خلوا كاملا، وتتضح واقعيته هنا في استغنائه عن الشواهد الاسطورية التي أوردها في جمهوريته الفاضلة واكتفائه تقريبًا بالشواهد التاريخية في القوانين، ونجده يكلمنا عن الدستور الأفضل الثاني والثالث بدلا من دستور واحد مثالي.
رؤى أفلاطون القانونية جديرة بالاهتمام لأنه لم يجعل من الشريعة المكتوبة هي الأساس الذي ليس بعده أساس، بل جعل شيئا فوق القانون يمكن تسميته بروح القانون وهو قائم بشكل أساس على الإقناع، فوظيفة روح القانون التعليم والإقناع، أما القانون المكتوب نفسه فوسيلة قسر وإصلاح لمن رفضوا روح القانون، فالمشرع طبيب يعالج لا مجرد حاكم يقضي.
وبالرغم من كل الإلماعات المهمة لأفلاطون في هذه المحاورة، إلا أكثر ما لفتني إلماعة تعليمية هامة، وهي مسألة تحديد مدة زمنية معينة لتعليم الفضائل والأمور الدينية، إذ رأى من العبث تحديد مدة لتعليم تلك الأمور إذ أن المدة المناسبة هي التي يجد عندها المتعلم اثر الفضائل أو حسه الإلهي قائم في نفسه وهو أمر يختلف من إنسان لآخر، إذا تنتهي المدة التعليمية لهذه الأمور بظهور اثرها العملي في النفس لا بمجرد الإدراك النظري، ويا لها من ملاحظة تبين لنا كيف أن الكثير من طلاب العلم الديني وبالرغم من إلمامهم العقلي التام بالفضائل الخلقية إلا أنها لا اثر لها في أخلاقهم عمليا، وبالتالي هم جهال في رؤية أفلاطون لأن علم الفضيلة يتم بظهور أثره لا بإدراك حده ورسمه!
يرجح أن هذه آخر محاورات أفلاطون وقد كتبها في سن متقدم وهو ما جعل آرائه فيها أكثر واقعية وإن لم تخل من مثاليته الشمولية خلوا كاملا، وتتضح واقعيته هنا في استغنائه عن الشواهد الاسطورية التي أوردها في جمهوريته الفاضلة واكتفائه تقريبًا بالشواهد التاريخية في القوانين، ونجده يكلمنا عن الدستور الأفضل الثاني والثالث بدلا من دستور واحد مثالي.
رؤى أفلاطون القانونية جديرة بالاهتمام لأنه لم يجعل من الشريعة المكتوبة هي الأساس الذي ليس بعده أساس، بل جعل شيئا فوق القانون يمكن تسميته بروح القانون وهو قائم بشكل أساس على الإقناع، فوظيفة روح القانون التعليم والإقناع، أما القانون المكتوب نفسه فوسيلة قسر وإصلاح لمن رفضوا روح القانون، فالمشرع طبيب يعالج لا مجرد حاكم يقضي.
وبالرغم من كل الإلماعات المهمة لأفلاطون في هذه المحاورة، إلا أكثر ما لفتني إلماعة تعليمية هامة، وهي مسألة تحديد مدة زمنية معينة لتعليم الفضائل والأمور الدينية، إذ رأى من العبث تحديد مدة لتعليم تلك الأمور إذ أن المدة المناسبة هي التي يجد عندها المتعلم اثر الفضائل أو حسه الإلهي قائم في نفسه وهو أمر يختلف من إنسان لآخر، إذا تنتهي المدة التعليمية لهذه الأمور بظهور اثرها العملي في النفس لا بمجرد الإدراك النظري، ويا لها من ملاحظة تبين لنا كيف أن الكثير من طلاب العلم الديني وبالرغم من إلمامهم العقلي التام بالفضائل الخلقية إلا أنها لا اثر لها في أخلاقهم عمليا، وبالتالي هم جهال في رؤية أفلاطون لأن علم الفضيلة يتم بظهور أثره لا بإدراك حده ورسمه!
May 30, 2022
a conversation on political philosophy between three elderly men: an unnamed Athenian, a Spartan named Megillus, and a Cretan named Clinias. These men work to create a constitution for Magnesia, a new Cretan colony. The government of Magnesia is a mixture of democratic and authoritarian principles that aim at making all of its citizens happy and virtuous.
Laws combines political philosophy with applied legislation, going into great detail concerning what laws and procedures should be in Magnesia. Examples include conversations on whether drunkenness should be allowed in the city, how citizens should hunt. Yet, the legal details, clunky prose, and lack of organization have drawn condemnation from both ancient and modern scholars. Many have attributed this awkward writing to Plato’s old age at the time of writing; nonetheless, readers should bear in mind that the work was never completed.
The Laws, left unfinished at Plato’s death, seems to represent a practical approach to the planning of a city.
Laws combines political philosophy with applied legislation, going into great detail concerning what laws and procedures should be in Magnesia. Examples include conversations on whether drunkenness should be allowed in the city, how citizens should hunt. Yet, the legal details, clunky prose, and lack of organization have drawn condemnation from both ancient and modern scholars. Many have attributed this awkward writing to Plato’s old age at the time of writing; nonetheless, readers should bear in mind that the work was never completed.
The Laws, left unfinished at Plato’s death, seems to represent a practical approach to the planning of a city.
February 28, 2019
When starting a new nation, the founding laws are key to that nation’s long term survival. Written well, and your nation will flourish. Written poorly and your nation will not last for long. In that spirit, when given the theoretical chance to found a new city-state in Ancient Greece, Plato attacks the issue with relish in this dialogue that may also have been one of his last written works. In some ways, it is a sequel to “The Republic,” but, unlike that classic book of philosophy, this one is not very interesting. Indeed, this book was mostly tedious. There were a few interesting sections, like his sections on education and religion, but most were dull. Also, I’m sure glad Plato isn’t founding anything in reality today as few of the laws he writes down would fly in modern society. Truly, this book is only for those who have a serious interest in ancient philosophy. For those with a passing interest, you can stick with “The Republic” and be satisfied.
July 23, 2025
started off super interesting with the whole debate about morality but lost me when the yap started about how slaves are necessary for a perfect society and also women suck 😔🙏 idk what to think about plato bro
June 5, 2019
Done with the entire written works of Plato! 🤯
February 19, 2022
Interesting for discussion but disturbing in content.
April 20, 2022
The greatest value for human beings is not merely—as most people believe—to be safe and to exist, but to become, and to be, as good as possible for as long as they remain alive.
October 29, 2012
"The Laws of Plato" translated by Thomas Pangle is a difficult but amply worthwhile read. The volume contains a lengthy "Interpretive Essay", by the translator, that is so full of enthusiasm for "The Laws" that it is more pleasant reading than the translation itself. In fact, I would be tempted to recommend a new reader to read the "Interpretive Essay" before tackling the translation.
The "Interpretive Essay" increased my appreciation for this book that I have read a couple of times before in another translation (and, of course, most recently, Pangle's translation). The essay does a great job of pointing out literary flourishes in the drama of the dialogue that contribute to an interpretation of what is said in the dialogue. Pangle pieces together the parts of the long discussion that make them (the parts) significant. Pangle brings the whole scheme out for the reader's examination, changing, or at least influencing, one's attitude that perhaps "The Laws" isn't quite the literary white elephant it is generally assessed to be.
Granted, it is no "Republic". It isn't one of the great dialogues of Plato. But, it does contribute to the overall cannon. "The Republic" describes the ideal city throughout an allegorical argument to define justice in the soul of a man. In the process he presents the theory of the forms, discusses education, and provides the reader with some of the greatest philosophical imagery to be found in Western literature. But, the ideal city was never intended to be made a reality in our physical world.
"The Laws" on the other hand, provide a consultation between three old men about the laws necessary to found a city. The principle speaker, the Athenian Stranger, argues that the purpose of the laws is to treat the spirits of the city's inhabitants in the way that a medical doctor heals physical bodies. The Athenian Stranger outlines institutions in Commerce, Defense, Religion, Education, The Family, and on and on. Principle values are full public disclosure and equality between men and women.
Yet, a reader will find the culture portrayed as different from modernity as the landscape from a well-developed piece of fantasy or science fiction is from our world. The stated purpose of the translator was to provide contemporary readers, who do not have a background in classical languages, with a presentation of Plato's thought that goes beyond a summary or gloss of the original. He wrote that we live in a time in which: "by the awareness that our culture--a liberal republicanism fueled by the forces of modern technology--has come to be riddled with self-doubt, and is under attack from vigorous and influential thinkers of both the Left...and the Right... No adequate defense of liberal democracy will be available, no complete evaluation of the attacks upon it will be possible, until we grasp its specific character in detail, by comparing it with the ancient Socratic tradition which the philosophic founders of liberalism in large part rejected and overthrew." (p. 375)
With all of this said, I recommend this translation of "The Laws of Plato", not as one's first Platonic dialogue, but rather as something to read after having read the great philosopher at his best in such works as "The Republic" or "The Symposium". I believe that by itself it would usually turn off a reader from completing the dialogue, much less to be inspired to read other works by Plato.
The "Interpretive Essay" increased my appreciation for this book that I have read a couple of times before in another translation (and, of course, most recently, Pangle's translation). The essay does a great job of pointing out literary flourishes in the drama of the dialogue that contribute to an interpretation of what is said in the dialogue. Pangle pieces together the parts of the long discussion that make them (the parts) significant. Pangle brings the whole scheme out for the reader's examination, changing, or at least influencing, one's attitude that perhaps "The Laws" isn't quite the literary white elephant it is generally assessed to be.
Granted, it is no "Republic". It isn't one of the great dialogues of Plato. But, it does contribute to the overall cannon. "The Republic" describes the ideal city throughout an allegorical argument to define justice in the soul of a man. In the process he presents the theory of the forms, discusses education, and provides the reader with some of the greatest philosophical imagery to be found in Western literature. But, the ideal city was never intended to be made a reality in our physical world.
"The Laws" on the other hand, provide a consultation between three old men about the laws necessary to found a city. The principle speaker, the Athenian Stranger, argues that the purpose of the laws is to treat the spirits of the city's inhabitants in the way that a medical doctor heals physical bodies. The Athenian Stranger outlines institutions in Commerce, Defense, Religion, Education, The Family, and on and on. Principle values are full public disclosure and equality between men and women.
Yet, a reader will find the culture portrayed as different from modernity as the landscape from a well-developed piece of fantasy or science fiction is from our world. The stated purpose of the translator was to provide contemporary readers, who do not have a background in classical languages, with a presentation of Plato's thought that goes beyond a summary or gloss of the original. He wrote that we live in a time in which: "by the awareness that our culture--a liberal republicanism fueled by the forces of modern technology--has come to be riddled with self-doubt, and is under attack from vigorous and influential thinkers of both the Left...and the Right... No adequate defense of liberal democracy will be available, no complete evaluation of the attacks upon it will be possible, until we grasp its specific character in detail, by comparing it with the ancient Socratic tradition which the philosophic founders of liberalism in large part rejected and overthrew." (p. 375)
With all of this said, I recommend this translation of "The Laws of Plato", not as one's first Platonic dialogue, but rather as something to read after having read the great philosopher at his best in such works as "The Republic" or "The Symposium". I believe that by itself it would usually turn off a reader from completing the dialogue, much less to be inspired to read other works by Plato.
March 9, 2021
Plato's The Laws is a classic masterpiece. Although it would be cumbersome to give a description of every section of the book, here are some highlights: Plato starts off talking about the inadequacy of Spartan and Cretan legislation, in that they are geared up completely to the aim of War. He then discusses drinking parties and how they can be beneficial or educational to citizens, as kind of test of self restraint. He discusses music, dance and singing to quite some extent, mainly in the form of three choruses, which include children, men to the age of thirty and men from the age of thirty to sixty. He discusses which kinds of music should be suitable or censored in the hypothetical new state to be founded on Crete called Magnesia. He discusses the preferred locality and the type of terrain Magnesia should be established on, he then divides the territory in to twelve districts radiating from the city and corresponding to twelve tribes. This is then divided further in to hearths or farms for each individual citizen or family, the exact number being 5040, which can neither increase nor decrease. He discusses what type of people should colonise Magnesia, what political offices there should be in the new state, and precisely how the offices are to be filled, whether by election or lot. There are four classes in Magnesia, ranging from wealthy to poor. Although farms are assigned to the citizens, property and produce are to be held in common, the state ultimately owns the land. This book is like a legislation for an early communist society. There is to be limited money and wealth in Magnesia, a man can only own up to four times the value of his lot. There are also restrictions on how much money a citizen can own, (all this is to curb the greed and avarice of profiteering). There are three goals of the city-state and the citizens, in order of importance, they are: virtue and that of the soul, the health of the body, and finally external goods, such as wealth. Virtue has four parts, courage, restraint, wisdom and justice, and the ultimate goal of the state and legislator is virtue. Plato discusses, common meals, education and military training and how women should be given equal inclusion and training in these institutions and fields. Plato then discusses capital offences, with surprisingly mild and severe punishments for homicide, woundings and assault. In a riveting chapter he then discusses religion and makes arguments against complete atheists, as well as those who believe the gods are indifferent to human affairs, and those who think the gods are venal and can be bribed. Surprisingly some of these punishments for these acts of impiety are harsher than those for homicide. In fact the death penalty occurs more frequently towards the end of the book, under miscellaneous legislation. The Laws is a riveting and essential read for anyone with an interest in legislation, statecraft or politics. I highly recommend it to anyone.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews