What do you think?
Rate this book
The Republic of Plato
Long regarded as the most accurate rendering of Plato's Republic that has yet been published, this widely acclaimed work is the first strictly literal translation of a timeless classic. This second edition includes a new introduction by Professor Bloom, whose careful translation and interpretation of The Republic was first published in 1968. In addition to the corrected text itself there is also a rich and valuable essay—as well as indexes—which will better enable the reader to approach the heart of Plato's intention.
487 pages, Paperback
Published October 3, 1991
About the author
Plato
5,908 books9,185 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 239 reviews
May 21, 2008
All the criticisms of Plato are valid. He raises straw arguments. He manipulates discussions unfairly. He doesn't offer realistic solutions. And so on.
But he is still, and for very good reason, the most influential philosopher in Western civilization. He makes people think. Most authors we read today are trying to persuade us to agree with their point of view. Plato, not so. He wants you to disagree with him. He wants you to argue with him. He wants you to identify the fallacies in his arguments (and some are deliberately fallacious). In short, he wants you to do the most difficult intellectual exercise there is. He wants you to think, and to think deeply.
The other thing to realize about Plato is that he is an exquisite poet and craftsman. There is nothing accidental about what he writes; there is nothing superfluous. Even the most minute seeming points are there for good reason. Part of the joy of reading Plato for the third, fourth, fifth time is to see each time a bit more about what he is doing and why he is doing it, to come closer to appreciating his extraordinary genius and encountering ever more deeply this incredible mind.
But he is still, and for very good reason, the most influential philosopher in Western civilization. He makes people think. Most authors we read today are trying to persuade us to agree with their point of view. Plato, not so. He wants you to disagree with him. He wants you to argue with him. He wants you to identify the fallacies in his arguments (and some are deliberately fallacious). In short, he wants you to do the most difficult intellectual exercise there is. He wants you to think, and to think deeply.
The other thing to realize about Plato is that he is an exquisite poet and craftsman. There is nothing accidental about what he writes; there is nothing superfluous. Even the most minute seeming points are there for good reason. Part of the joy of reading Plato for the third, fourth, fifth time is to see each time a bit more about what he is doing and why he is doing it, to come closer to appreciating his extraordinary genius and encountering ever more deeply this incredible mind.
November 15, 2014
I finished reading THE REPUBLIC for the second time just now. It is arguably the second most influential book in the western canon. We all should study it.
Allan Bloom's translation is a good one -- I am told by reliable sources -- and his interpretive essay is not to be missed. (I read the essay as it appeared in the 1968 edition.) But be aware that his interpretation is not a traditional one. For example, compare Bertrand Russell's summary of Plato in his HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. So don't be confused if Bloom's essay feels unfamiliar or seems to contradict other things that you may have learned or read about Plato.
After a second reading, more than forty years after the first, I am still uncertain when/whether Plato is writing esoterically. But I don't think it matters. We can decide the merits of the City in Speech for ourselves. And how do we feel about that philosophical, but unattainable regime? (We do not like it, of course. Socrates advocates censorship, separating children from their families, banning books and other methods of government control of personal thought, expression and association. Does it make sense that Plato would have intended for us to disapprove? Should we score one for esoteric writing there?)
What about the timocracy devoted to honor that the city in speech will decay into? Followed by oligarchy where wealth is valued above all else? Then unruly democracy? And finally tyranny?
I read THE REPUBLIC this last time in a reading group. That's the best way to read it, I think. It was written to be discussed and puzzled over. And we did.
Allan Bloom's translation is a good one -- I am told by reliable sources -- and his interpretive essay is not to be missed. (I read the essay as it appeared in the 1968 edition.) But be aware that his interpretation is not a traditional one. For example, compare Bertrand Russell's summary of Plato in his HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. So don't be confused if Bloom's essay feels unfamiliar or seems to contradict other things that you may have learned or read about Plato.
After a second reading, more than forty years after the first, I am still uncertain when/whether Plato is writing esoterically. But I don't think it matters. We can decide the merits of the City in Speech for ourselves. And how do we feel about that philosophical, but unattainable regime? (We do not like it, of course. Socrates advocates censorship, separating children from their families, banning books and other methods of government control of personal thought, expression and association. Does it make sense that Plato would have intended for us to disapprove? Should we score one for esoteric writing there?)
What about the timocracy devoted to honor that the city in speech will decay into? Followed by oligarchy where wealth is valued above all else? Then unruly democracy? And finally tyranny?
I read THE REPUBLIC this last time in a reading group. That's the best way to read it, I think. It was written to be discussed and puzzled over. And we did.
September 22, 2016
There is in every one of us, even those who seem to be most moderate, a type of desire that is terrible, wild, and lawless.
So, it should be noted that I did not find this book at a bookstore and voluntarily buy it for my leisurely reading... It was on the syllabus for my political theory class. That being said, I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would.
Would I recommend it for a vacation? Absolutely not. Unless you like pondering about justice and censorship and the creations of rulers and cities... it's pretty dense material, but most of the fun in reading a book like this being able to discuss, debate and analyze the ideas and arguments Plato puts forth with a group of people. Maybe if I tried to read it by myself, I'd get bored or uninspired. But our class discussions (and syllabus) really kept me engrossed in the subject matter.
I guess I'd recommend this book to a philosophy book club, if those exist.
So, it should be noted that I did not find this book at a bookstore and voluntarily buy it for my leisurely reading... It was on the syllabus for my political theory class. That being said, I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would.
Would I recommend it for a vacation? Absolutely not. Unless you like pondering about justice and censorship and the creations of rulers and cities... it's pretty dense material, but most of the fun in reading a book like this being able to discuss, debate and analyze the ideas and arguments Plato puts forth with a group of people. Maybe if I tried to read it by myself, I'd get bored or uninspired. But our class discussions (and syllabus) really kept me engrossed in the subject matter.
I guess I'd recommend this book to a philosophy book club, if those exist.
March 22, 2021
I finished the first book of the republic (there are 10 in total). And it was much harder work then the previous dialogues I read and much harder then what I remembered when I read it for the first time, many years ago.
I can only recommend to read it in a translation which provides ample notes. Like the one by Allan Bloom. This translation goes in the meaning of the original words which is important because key words are determined by the context and time when they were written and the original Greek words have some extra connotations.
The Republic of Plato
Furthermore consider using the guide: Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic. This one is great because it gives a chapter by chapter explanation. So it is ideal for reconsidering the chapter after the lecture and is also better retained.
Most companion provide general explanations about the themes pertaining to the book. This can be interesting additionally but less essential then the guide I mentioned above. An example of such a theme companion is The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic
I can only recommend to read it in a translation which provides ample notes. Like the one by Allan Bloom. This translation goes in the meaning of the original words which is important because key words are determined by the context and time when they were written and the original Greek words have some extra connotations.
The Republic of Plato
Furthermore consider using the guide: Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic. This one is great because it gives a chapter by chapter explanation. So it is ideal for reconsidering the chapter after the lecture and is also better retained.
Most companion provide general explanations about the themes pertaining to the book. This can be interesting additionally but less essential then the guide I mentioned above. An example of such a theme companion is The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic
July 21, 2007
i have read plato's republic...three times.
and i've actually enjoyed every time, although i hadn't thought i would each round.
i love greek writing, and though aristotle and thucydides are my favorite, plato is a close second (third?).
even if you disagree with the ideas he presents, the ideas are fascinating to discuss. i actually kind of think it is way more fun to discuss when someone contradicts an idea or assumption made.
the dialectic style is one of my favorite aspects of the novel. as a fan of conversations, i think this has got to be one of the most essential ways of communicating and debating ideas (i take it with a grain of salt - i am aware that plato was able to manipulate his contradictors - is that a word?... - since he was the author, but still. i like it despite that.)
last, the allegory of the cave is sooo wonderful to me. i love the idea - and even though i don't fully agree / believe in it, it has been the springing board of many of my ideas of human knowledge, capability, and (most importantly to a media studies major) reality.
and i've actually enjoyed every time, although i hadn't thought i would each round.
i love greek writing, and though aristotle and thucydides are my favorite, plato is a close second (third?).
even if you disagree with the ideas he presents, the ideas are fascinating to discuss. i actually kind of think it is way more fun to discuss when someone contradicts an idea or assumption made.
the dialectic style is one of my favorite aspects of the novel. as a fan of conversations, i think this has got to be one of the most essential ways of communicating and debating ideas (i take it with a grain of salt - i am aware that plato was able to manipulate his contradictors - is that a word?... - since he was the author, but still. i like it despite that.)
last, the allegory of the cave is sooo wonderful to me. i love the idea - and even though i don't fully agree / believe in it, it has been the springing board of many of my ideas of human knowledge, capability, and (most importantly to a media studies major) reality.
Read
January 31, 2017It doesn't feel right to give this book a strict star rating. This was really really interesting! While Philosophy normally isn't my thing I really did appreciate what this book had to offer.
January 12, 2008
When I wrote this review I failed to mention Bloom’s essay (and translation). It’s possibly the best commentary on Plato I’ve read. An overly simple summary is that Bloom suggests many of Socrates’ proposals were intentionally preposterous, with the aim of leading his interlocutors to grasp that no truly legitimate political system is possible, and that the best course for individuals is to tend their souls, necessarily within a polity, going along with its requirements as necessary, but avoiding involvement in it as much as possible. Also, he suggests much of what Socrates says is not a definite political program, but directed to the particular characters of his interlocutors (Glaucon and Adeimantus) to lead them towards philosophy and away from their particular weaknesses (as Socrates saw them).
Bloom makes a very good case for this interpretation, which I’ve grossly oversimplified (and left important parts out). There’ll never be an end to the debate, but this essay is one to be reckoned with by anyone interested in the Republic. Regarding the translation, it’s very precise; someone with a little knowledge of Greek can often see the Greek through the English. This makes for less flowing language; with a lesser dialogue such as the Euthyphro I prefer a more literary translation, but it seems appropriate for such an important work. My review was:
In the West, at least, this is the touchstone of all political philosophy, and Plato pretty much covered all the issues people have been fighting and arguing about since people started wondering how societies should be organized and governed. It's easy to say that Plato's ideal state is nutty beyond imagination, but that misses the point. He asked the questions that really matter, and just about all of them, and considered them deeply and carefully, and then came up with his nutty system.
What about us? We live in a largely unquestioning age - maybe virtually everyone has. But it’s hard for, say, a modern American to read Plato’s assessment of the relative merits and demerits of different political systems and come away with the kind of mindless idolization of “democracy” with which we’re inundated by politicians and the media. It’s easy to say Plato’s system is goofy, but do you ever hear anyone in America publicly saying, “Democracy has a lot of serious weaknesses, one of them being its tendency to develop a culture needing life support.” Or, “Elites provide some real benefits to society, as does an aristocratic element.” Could those ideas have some merit? Well, we never even get that far since those ideas are too blasphemous for our society.
It’s funny how open-minded we consider our modern selves. But when’s the last time you heard a serious, thoughtful critique of modern liberal democracy (as opposed to a silly, neo-Marxist rant)? Plato had the courage, the detachment, and the brilliance to give his honest assessment of the various systems, compare them and then judge them. His purpose, at least apparently, had little to do with an agenda other than asking a question – what might constitute a good government? And not only good, but the best? Those questions require asking and answering questions about human nature and the nature of social relationships. Plato asks so well and considers so well, and so comprehensively, that his ideal system (regardless of whether he was even very serious about it) isn’t the issue. The significance, I think, is that he gets us to consider all the important questions he considers, many of which we otherwise probably wouldn’t have considered, and among other things to then uncover our unexamined assumptions and prejudices and reassess them.
Bloom makes a very good case for this interpretation, which I’ve grossly oversimplified (and left important parts out). There’ll never be an end to the debate, but this essay is one to be reckoned with by anyone interested in the Republic. Regarding the translation, it’s very precise; someone with a little knowledge of Greek can often see the Greek through the English. This makes for less flowing language; with a lesser dialogue such as the Euthyphro I prefer a more literary translation, but it seems appropriate for such an important work. My review was:
In the West, at least, this is the touchstone of all political philosophy, and Plato pretty much covered all the issues people have been fighting and arguing about since people started wondering how societies should be organized and governed. It's easy to say that Plato's ideal state is nutty beyond imagination, but that misses the point. He asked the questions that really matter, and just about all of them, and considered them deeply and carefully, and then came up with his nutty system.
What about us? We live in a largely unquestioning age - maybe virtually everyone has. But it’s hard for, say, a modern American to read Plato’s assessment of the relative merits and demerits of different political systems and come away with the kind of mindless idolization of “democracy” with which we’re inundated by politicians and the media. It’s easy to say Plato’s system is goofy, but do you ever hear anyone in America publicly saying, “Democracy has a lot of serious weaknesses, one of them being its tendency to develop a culture needing life support.” Or, “Elites provide some real benefits to society, as does an aristocratic element.” Could those ideas have some merit? Well, we never even get that far since those ideas are too blasphemous for our society.
It’s funny how open-minded we consider our modern selves. But when’s the last time you heard a serious, thoughtful critique of modern liberal democracy (as opposed to a silly, neo-Marxist rant)? Plato had the courage, the detachment, and the brilliance to give his honest assessment of the various systems, compare them and then judge them. His purpose, at least apparently, had little to do with an agenda other than asking a question – what might constitute a good government? And not only good, but the best? Those questions require asking and answering questions about human nature and the nature of social relationships. Plato asks so well and considers so well, and so comprehensively, that his ideal system (regardless of whether he was even very serious about it) isn’t the issue. The significance, I think, is that he gets us to consider all the important questions he considers, many of which we otherwise probably wouldn’t have considered, and among other things to then uncover our unexamined assumptions and prejudices and reassess them.
March 20, 2017
I promised myself I would write reviews to aid myself in understanding any given work. Here goes:
A lot of the Republic doesn't make sense on a first reading, I think especially to a more pragmatic culture. I'm still confused on second reading, but weeks after finishing it I'm still thinking about it and obviously, this experience is not uncommon.
Plato explores justice in an absolutely unconventional way. Several definitions or ideas about justice are thrown out, with Socrates knocking down each one (though not always convincingly), but always (or usually) with the audience learning something, or with some misconception about justice being revealed. One of the definitions of justice thrown out is that it is doing good to one's friends and harming enemies. Some of our laws are set up along these lines. If a person does harm to me (i.e. by taking away something that is mine, etc) then he is my enemy and “justice” would be getting it back (i.e. causing harm or punishment to the offender). But Socrates is not satisfied with this and makes quick work of this definition. He proposes that they search for justice and since a city is the soul writ large, they should construct a city and see if justice makes an appearance.
In the city, Socrates destroys the traditional family, endorses censorship, and adds many other impractical guidelines. This is really interesting in light of the above definition of justice that is the more-self-centered view of protecting the individual's property (not that I think that is wrong). It is just particularly telling that Socrates believes in truth with a capital T (or forms), and he wants to find it, wherever it may lie. And for me, this is what The Republic is about (this time around, anyway). It is a theoretical exploration/search for justice. If it lies in a city along deconstructed lines then that's where we look.
A lot of the Republic doesn't make sense on a first reading, I think especially to a more pragmatic culture. I'm still confused on second reading, but weeks after finishing it I'm still thinking about it and obviously, this experience is not uncommon.
Plato explores justice in an absolutely unconventional way. Several definitions or ideas about justice are thrown out, with Socrates knocking down each one (though not always convincingly), but always (or usually) with the audience learning something, or with some misconception about justice being revealed. One of the definitions of justice thrown out is that it is doing good to one's friends and harming enemies. Some of our laws are set up along these lines. If a person does harm to me (i.e. by taking away something that is mine, etc) then he is my enemy and “justice” would be getting it back (i.e. causing harm or punishment to the offender). But Socrates is not satisfied with this and makes quick work of this definition. He proposes that they search for justice and since a city is the soul writ large, they should construct a city and see if justice makes an appearance.
In the city, Socrates destroys the traditional family, endorses censorship, and adds many other impractical guidelines. This is really interesting in light of the above definition of justice that is the more-self-centered view of protecting the individual's property (not that I think that is wrong). It is just particularly telling that Socrates believes in truth with a capital T (or forms), and he wants to find it, wherever it may lie. And for me, this is what The Republic is about (this time around, anyway). It is a theoretical exploration/search for justice. If it lies in a city along deconstructed lines then that's where we look.
Read
May 31, 2015For a better understanding of this book, or at least one you can tolerate without wanting to hit Plato in the face as much as usual, read The Just City by Jo Walton. Enjoy!
May 28, 2026
I imagine everything that could be said about this book already has. But I'm still tossing out some thoughts:
1. I highly recommend the translation and included commentary in The Republic of Plato by Allan Bloom. Frankly without his commentary my appreciation for this work would have suffered greatly.
2. About halfway through you find that the book is more about the Soul and Platonic Forms than about The City.
3. I think this book could be paired, for debate, with The Open Society and Its Enemies for a discussion on Democracy.
4. Who benefits from the kind of society Plato/Socrates is proposing? Do the regular people? What is life supposed to be about?
I'm a negative utilitarian and a fan of Schopenhauer. His The Basis of Morality critiques Kant's moral philosophy and concludes that morality should be based on compassion. The Republic felt devoid of that kind of compassion, whether or not a society based on true compassion is realistic.
5. The idea of human rights, and man as a rational and intelligent being, were modern concepts that emerged from The Enlightenment. In the centuries to follow the idea of man as a basically rational being was tested with the rise of propaganda. Edward Bernays pretty successfully demonstrated that people could be greatly manipulated via their instincts, desires, fears, and passions.
6. And so it continues . . .
From the Allan Bloom commentary on Book X:
====== The analysis below is from a chat AI==========
Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom's teacher, believed the Republic was composed to do "exactly the opposite" of Allan Bloom’s conclusion for most readers. This is in reference to Strauss’s famous theory of esoteric writing and his ironic interpretation of Plato's ideal city.
While Bloom states that the Republic teaches the total superiority of the philosophic life over politics, Strauss argued that the book's surface layer is deliberately designed to make readers believe that politics can be perfectly moralized and mastered by philosophy.
Strauss split the readers of the Republic into two distinct groups: the "many" (the general public) and the "few" (potential philosophers).
1. The Surface Lesson for the "Many": Political Idealism
Strauss maintained that the immediate, literal impression of the Republic is highly idealistic. For the standard reader, Plato seems to be providing a blueprint for the perfect society (Kallipolis) ruled by wise Philosopher-Kings.
● The Opposite Effect: Instead of leaving the average reader in "philosophic doubt" or turning them away from politics, the text initially fills them with political zeal and a belief that human society can be perfectly engineered through absolute justice.
● The Social Function: Strauss believed that a stable society requires citizens to have deep faith in its laws and moral order. By presenting a magnificent, just city, Plato provides a "noble lie" or a high moral standard that inspires civic duty and respect for authority in ordinary citizens.
2. The Hidden Lesson for the "Few": Political Moderation
For a tiny minority of readers—those who read meticulously "between the lines"—Strauss argued that Plato dropped intentional contradictions, absurdities, and logical fallacies.
● The Impracticality of Kallipolis: Strauss pointed out that Plato’s ideal city requires absurd extremes, such as destroying the traditional family, communist sharing of wives and children, and expelling everyone over the age of ten from the city.
● The Incoherence of the Philosopher-King: Strauss noted a fatal paradox: the people would only choose a philosopher to rule if they were already wise enough to recognize wisdom. But if the people were already that wise, a Philosopher-King wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Furthermore, true philosophers hate politics and must be forced to rule, creating an unsustainable regime.
Why Bloom and Strauss Actually Align (The Twist)
Despite the mechanism of the book, Bloom and Strauss actually arrive at the exact same destination.
Strauss’s core argument in his essay on the Republic in "The City and Man" is that the ideal city is a satire or an intentional impossibility. Plato constructs a political utopia to show that a perfectly just city is fundamentally against human nature.
Therefore, the Republic is designed to do opposite things to opposite audiences:
1. It inspires political idealism and obedience in the general public, who take it literally.
2. It cures potential philosophers of political fanaticism, teaching them political moderation by showing them that politics can never perfectly accommodate true philosophy.
When Bloom writes that the book teaches the "necessity of philosophy and its priority... to the political life," he is revealing what Strauss would call the esoteric (hidden) core of the text. And, thus, the exoteric (surface) design of the book works in the exact opposite direction to protect society from the radical skepticism of philosophy.
NOTE:
"The City and the Man":
https://philosophy.uchicago.edu/node/...
1. I highly recommend the translation and included commentary in The Republic of Plato by Allan Bloom. Frankly without his commentary my appreciation for this work would have suffered greatly.
2. About halfway through you find that the book is more about the Soul and Platonic Forms than about The City.
3. I think this book could be paired, for debate, with The Open Society and Its Enemies for a discussion on Democracy.
4. Who benefits from the kind of society Plato/Socrates is proposing? Do the regular people? What is life supposed to be about?
I'm a negative utilitarian and a fan of Schopenhauer. His The Basis of Morality critiques Kant's moral philosophy and concludes that morality should be based on compassion. The Republic felt devoid of that kind of compassion, whether or not a society based on true compassion is realistic.
5. The idea of human rights, and man as a rational and intelligent being, were modern concepts that emerged from The Enlightenment. In the centuries to follow the idea of man as a basically rational being was tested with the rise of propaganda. Edward Bernays pretty successfully demonstrated that people could be greatly manipulated via their instincts, desires, fears, and passions.
6. And so it continues . . .
From the Allan Bloom commentary on Book X:
The Republic, which seems to give a completed teaching about politics and the soul, ends with a return to philosophic doubt, to the conviction that one's opinions are open to unanswered, if not unanswerable, questions. In one sense one can even say that the book has taught us nothing other than the necessity of philosophy and its priority and superiority to the political life.Allan Bloom’s quote suggests that The Republic isn't actually a blueprint for a perfect government; it is a demonstration of how easily human opinions crumble under scrutiny, leaving us with "philosophic doubt." True Socratic questioning (called Elenchus or "refutation") is not a method for teaching a truth. It is a method for destroying an illusion of knowledge.
====== The analysis below is from a chat AI==========
Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom's teacher, believed the Republic was composed to do "exactly the opposite" of Allan Bloom’s conclusion for most readers. This is in reference to Strauss’s famous theory of esoteric writing and his ironic interpretation of Plato's ideal city.
While Bloom states that the Republic teaches the total superiority of the philosophic life over politics, Strauss argued that the book's surface layer is deliberately designed to make readers believe that politics can be perfectly moralized and mastered by philosophy.
Strauss split the readers of the Republic into two distinct groups: the "many" (the general public) and the "few" (potential philosophers).
1. The Surface Lesson for the "Many": Political Idealism
Strauss maintained that the immediate, literal impression of the Republic is highly idealistic. For the standard reader, Plato seems to be providing a blueprint for the perfect society (Kallipolis) ruled by wise Philosopher-Kings.
● The Opposite Effect: Instead of leaving the average reader in "philosophic doubt" or turning them away from politics, the text initially fills them with political zeal and a belief that human society can be perfectly engineered through absolute justice.
● The Social Function: Strauss believed that a stable society requires citizens to have deep faith in its laws and moral order. By presenting a magnificent, just city, Plato provides a "noble lie" or a high moral standard that inspires civic duty and respect for authority in ordinary citizens.
2. The Hidden Lesson for the "Few": Political Moderation
For a tiny minority of readers—those who read meticulously "between the lines"—Strauss argued that Plato dropped intentional contradictions, absurdities, and logical fallacies.
● The Impracticality of Kallipolis: Strauss pointed out that Plato’s ideal city requires absurd extremes, such as destroying the traditional family, communist sharing of wives and children, and expelling everyone over the age of ten from the city.
● The Incoherence of the Philosopher-King: Strauss noted a fatal paradox: the people would only choose a philosopher to rule if they were already wise enough to recognize wisdom. But if the people were already that wise, a Philosopher-King wouldn't be necessary in the first place. Furthermore, true philosophers hate politics and must be forced to rule, creating an unsustainable regime.
Why Bloom and Strauss Actually Align (The Twist)
Despite the mechanism of the book, Bloom and Strauss actually arrive at the exact same destination.
Strauss’s core argument in his essay on the Republic in "The City and Man" is that the ideal city is a satire or an intentional impossibility. Plato constructs a political utopia to show that a perfectly just city is fundamentally against human nature.
Therefore, the Republic is designed to do opposite things to opposite audiences:
1. It inspires political idealism and obedience in the general public, who take it literally.
2. It cures potential philosophers of political fanaticism, teaching them political moderation by showing them that politics can never perfectly accommodate true philosophy.
When Bloom writes that the book teaches the "necessity of philosophy and its priority... to the political life," he is revealing what Strauss would call the esoteric (hidden) core of the text. And, thus, the exoteric (surface) design of the book works in the exact opposite direction to protect society from the radical skepticism of philosophy.
NOTE:
"The City and the Man":
https://philosophy.uchicago.edu/node/...
September 21, 2024
Does Socrates' noble lie invalidate his anatomy of the soul?
November 19, 2022
what a dang romp!
November 29, 2022
“Now this god is doubtless the ancestral interpreter of such things for all humans, and he sits in the middle of the earth at its navel and delivers his interpretations.” (427c)
March 25, 2022
And, moreover, we say that the former are seen but not intellect, while the ideas are intellect but not seen.
Wow, what an awesome ending. I felt the dialogues really picking up around Book Six where Socrates (or Plato through Socrates) formally tells us the basis for his philosophy. But the last Book on the afterlife displayed imagery that was clearly ahead of its time, not to mention the cameos we get from folks like Odysseus and Agamemnon. We saw from Meno that Socrates believes in an immortal soul but gives a different justification for its immortality here in Book Ten. However, somewhat against the grain, he believes in both Heaven/Hell and reincarnation. The next life one must choose on one’s own, meaning that your previous time in Heaven may not coincide with having a good next life if you choose wrong.
Throughout the dialogues, like in the Death of Socrates or the School of Athens , Socrates/Plato constantly reminds us to tilt our heads upward for Truth.
Foreshadow alert!
Socrates argues for the importance of the theoretical over the practical. When he lists his subjects for the Quadrivium (which I didn’t know made its appearance here, so that was a pleasant surprise), the first is arithmetic – the world of abstraction. His most (what’s currently considered) scientific subject is astronomy, the investigation of the heavens. The truth of the physical world is but a perverted facsimile of the invisible world.
Of course, in the reality that we live in, nothing arrives where it’s expected. Further along my read, I couldn’t help but feel paranoid, as though the walls were caving in on me. If it’s the case that physical reality is fake, then that means all that is around me doesn’t matter. We can have our head in the clouds for some time, but we also have work to do in the reality with which we can physically interact. We’ll see how Aristotle responds to this anon!
Though not gonna lie, most of Socrates’ political remedies did bore me a little. What I did learn was that the Republic was written after Lycurgus’ rule. I could’ve sworn that my version of Lives had a note by the translator that said Lycurgus’ cultural law was influenced by Socrates’ theoretical government, but maybe I read that wrong. This is why it’s good to keep a mental timeline with these old books.
Also, a lecture by the late, great James Cutsinger.
Wow, what an awesome ending. I felt the dialogues really picking up around Book Six where Socrates (or Plato through Socrates) formally tells us the basis for his philosophy. But the last Book on the afterlife displayed imagery that was clearly ahead of its time, not to mention the cameos we get from folks like Odysseus and Agamemnon. We saw from Meno that Socrates believes in an immortal soul but gives a different justification for its immortality here in Book Ten. However, somewhat against the grain, he believes in both Heaven/Hell and reincarnation. The next life one must choose on one’s own, meaning that your previous time in Heaven may not coincide with having a good next life if you choose wrong.
Throughout the dialogues, like in the Death of Socrates or the School of Athens , Socrates/Plato constantly reminds us to tilt our heads upward for Truth.
Then, you noble man, it would draw the soul toward truth and be productive of philosophic understanding in directing upward what we now improperly direct downward. (526 b)
And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn’t they kill him? (517 a)
Foreshadow alert!
Socrates argues for the importance of the theoretical over the practical. When he lists his subjects for the Quadrivium (which I didn’t know made its appearance here, so that was a pleasant surprise), the first is arithmetic – the world of abstraction. His most (what’s currently considered) scientific subject is astronomy, the investigation of the heavens. The truth of the physical world is but a perverted facsimile of the invisible world.
...those whom we shall be rearing should never attempt to learn anything imperfect, anything that doesn’t always come out at the point where everything out to arrive… (530 c)
Of course, in the reality that we live in, nothing arrives where it’s expected. Further along my read, I couldn’t help but feel paranoid, as though the walls were caving in on me. If it’s the case that physical reality is fake, then that means all that is around me doesn’t matter. We can have our head in the clouds for some time, but we also have work to do in the reality with which we can physically interact. We’ll see how Aristotle responds to this anon!
Though not gonna lie, most of Socrates’ political remedies did bore me a little. What I did learn was that the Republic was written after Lycurgus’ rule. I could’ve sworn that my version of Lives had a note by the translator that said Lycurgus’ cultural law was influenced by Socrates’ theoretical government, but maybe I read that wrong. This is why it’s good to keep a mental timeline with these old books.
Also, a lecture by the late, great James Cutsinger.
June 23, 2023
Bloom's translation and commentary are illuminating. The influence of German conservative revolutionary thought on the main themes expounded in the commentary is so obvious. Various critiques contributed to the methods employed, from Aristophanes' comical depictions of the anti-political nature of the study of the things under heaven to Schmitt's canonization the political. But although the German influence is undeniable, in their conclusions, the methods are thoroughly in fundamental contrast with the traditions of German historicism and what Strauss used to dub 'German nihilism'.
September 21, 2018
Rating: 3 stars
Some of Plato’s ideas are so poignant and interesting, yet others are just so far off the rail. Plato and Socrates provide the philosophy which are the basis of today’s society, and this book is such a huge part of that. Sadly, I'm just not a philosophy person, and the information just goes in one ear and straight out the other; I need a professor to explain these topics to me.
This edition was wonderful, and surprisingly easy to read and understand. I highly recommend it!
Some of Plato’s ideas are so poignant and interesting, yet others are just so far off the rail. Plato and Socrates provide the philosophy which are the basis of today’s society, and this book is such a huge part of that. Sadly, I'm just not a philosophy person, and the information just goes in one ear and straight out the other; I need a professor to explain these topics to me.
This edition was wonderful, and surprisingly easy to read and understand. I highly recommend it!
January 18, 2015
Review from second reading: The first time I read The Republic was a small epoch in my life. It frustrated and excited me to giddiness. It still does. I suspect I'll say the same the third and fourth times I read it, too.
Also, I know I am a pretentious person who mentions Plato way too much, but he really is so laugh-out loud-funny quite often. Rereading the text allows one to be more comfortable with its humour.
Review from first reading: I'm tempted to give this 5 stars despite (or perhaps because of?) the fact that for every time I agreed with Socrates, I found him disgustingly elitist and un-empathetic. However, a significant reason for how much I enjoyed studying this book was simply how excited my professor was about it, and how much he emphasized the "almost erotic pleasure" of the life of the philosopher king/queen. I am making no boasts to finding Plato easy; as my prof reminded the class, there are people who spend their whole lives studying him. A few weeks was far too short a time to even scratch the surface, yet I still find myself recognizing Plato's influences (especially in regard to the theory of forms)everywhere.
Maybe next time I reread The Republic my mind will not be spinning so much, and I'll feel sober enough to give it a five star review. Haha. Not likely (on the mind not spinning bit.) Although, for a book full of the buzzing of a gadfly, it ends on a note suspiciously like Julian of Norwich's declaration: "All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well." If one chooses the life of the philosopher king, that is.
Also, I know I am a pretentious person who mentions Plato way too much, but he really is so laugh-out loud-funny quite often. Rereading the text allows one to be more comfortable with its humour.
Review from first reading: I'm tempted to give this 5 stars despite (or perhaps because of?) the fact that for every time I agreed with Socrates, I found him disgustingly elitist and un-empathetic. However, a significant reason for how much I enjoyed studying this book was simply how excited my professor was about it, and how much he emphasized the "almost erotic pleasure" of the life of the philosopher king/queen. I am making no boasts to finding Plato easy; as my prof reminded the class, there are people who spend their whole lives studying him. A few weeks was far too short a time to even scratch the surface, yet I still find myself recognizing Plato's influences (especially in regard to the theory of forms)everywhere.
Maybe next time I reread The Republic my mind will not be spinning so much, and I'll feel sober enough to give it a five star review. Haha. Not likely (on the mind not spinning bit.) Although, for a book full of the buzzing of a gadfly, it ends on a note suspiciously like Julian of Norwich's declaration: "All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well." If one chooses the life of the philosopher king, that is.
February 20, 2016
I first read this book the summer after I graduated from college. I've read it seven times since then.
Why read it? Because this is the ONLY book in which the whole wealth of perennial philosophical questions are interconnected and woven through one another. Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy, Ontology, Epistemology, Logic...None of these are separate. This book is the proof. Somehow, this all-night rager of a conversation goes everywhere and does everything. What emerges is not isolated or useful truths but a kind of hazy vision of all the possibilities of human thinking. Sounds grand, but I mean that even ideas and questions that aren't explicitly in this book manage to appear in conversations *about* it.
This book is conversation crack; unless you have been deadened to philosophy by its detractors or its professors, you simply can't read it and not have something to say about each part of it. Love it or hate it, you will have something to say. And the person next to you will say something different. And both things will lead you to a third thing. This book is as fecund as books get. It is good to read it with others.
No mistake, this book frustrates its readers. Socrates doesn't teach, he plays with ideas. My advice is to get in on the joke instead of becoming the butt of it. Time to get judgmental: people too serious to joke along with Plato can't learn much about philosophy or themselves.
Bloom's translation is among the best and my choice for reading the book.
Why read it? Because this is the ONLY book in which the whole wealth of perennial philosophical questions are interconnected and woven through one another. Ethics, Aesthetics, Political Philosophy, Ontology, Epistemology, Logic...None of these are separate. This book is the proof. Somehow, this all-night rager of a conversation goes everywhere and does everything. What emerges is not isolated or useful truths but a kind of hazy vision of all the possibilities of human thinking. Sounds grand, but I mean that even ideas and questions that aren't explicitly in this book manage to appear in conversations *about* it.
This book is conversation crack; unless you have been deadened to philosophy by its detractors or its professors, you simply can't read it and not have something to say about each part of it. Love it or hate it, you will have something to say. And the person next to you will say something different. And both things will lead you to a third thing. This book is as fecund as books get. It is good to read it with others.
No mistake, this book frustrates its readers. Socrates doesn't teach, he plays with ideas. My advice is to get in on the joke instead of becoming the butt of it. Time to get judgmental: people too serious to joke along with Plato can't learn much about philosophy or themselves.
Bloom's translation is among the best and my choice for reading the book.
June 12, 2010
In spite of how utterly vapid the 'perfect city' is presented as, and in spite of the (by modern standards) kooky, often frightening attempts at social and artistic control, I found myself really drawn into this. It's a weird book to read since it clashes so much with what our basic ideas are of what a good society would look like, but that's what makes it so interesting. This pulled me out of my snug, modern perspective more totally and more uncomfortably than anything else I've read from the classical world. In that sense, I found it to be a useful tool for challenging my own complacency. It's just full of lots of great "wait...what?!" moments which disorient and force you to confront how groups of people manage to understand and interact with each other at all. I guess what I really like most about it is that it's one of the first pieces of writing to succinctly ask what life is for. It's not an easy read. It takes a good deal of patience and a willingness to not merely ignore, but to actually dive into the crazier parts, but all in all I found it a rewarding effort. While I can't stand most of Allan Bloom's ideas, he's a pretty darn good translator, or at least he seems to me from some of the clunkier editions I browsed through at the college bookstore.
July 20, 2026
The reviews of this book on this site really do a fantastic job of highlighting Plato's point about humanity. People read this book attempting to find a way to use Plato for their own devices and not with a mind open to the potential of Plato teaching them. Every major philosophy can be found within the pages of this book. Every fault of the soul and every joy. To limit Plato to a mere system of refutations shows the limits of that readers' minds. You were not ready for Plato. This book is revolutionary and there is a reason that Plato and his principles have become so interwoven into Western culture. He's right and he's right about so many things. I could not recommend this book enough.
Read
December 6, 2011Other Titles That Were Considered For
The Republic
by Plato:
~ 20 Questions with Socrates as dictated by Plato
~ Socrates and the Never-Ending Tangent as dictated by Plato
~ Socrates Answers Questions With More Questions as dictated by Plato
~ A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma, as Confusedly Told by Socrates as dictated by Plato
~ Can Someone Remind Me Again Why We Invited Socrates Over? as dictated by Plato
~ 20 Questions with Socrates as dictated by Plato
~ Socrates and the Never-Ending Tangent as dictated by Plato
~ Socrates Answers Questions With More Questions as dictated by Plato
~ A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma, as Confusedly Told by Socrates as dictated by Plato
~ Can Someone Remind Me Again Why We Invited Socrates Over? as dictated by Plato
January 17, 2016
For understanding Socrates and his philosophy, here's required reading. Although lately I have come to regard this book as a fictional treatment (in genre fiction we call it Didactic Fiction) of Plato's philosophy as phrased by Socrates. I don't lose sleep over whether the ideas initially came from Socrates or Plato though.
What matters is the full treatment of Socrates' Ideal society. Bloom's translation reads very easily and it makes the work even that much more accessible.
What matters is the full treatment of Socrates' Ideal society. Bloom's translation reads very easily and it makes the work even that much more accessible.
July 3, 2016
La República de Platón es el texto que todo ciudadano y que todo líder debe de aprender a leer, y CONSIDERAR en la vida diaria. Para evitar distopias como 1984 de Orwell, es perentorio leer esta obra.
Incluso, el alcance es tan amplio, que puede entrar en tu vida personal y jamás continuarás quejándote de que la vida es injusta.
Es necesario leer esta obra. Se la recomiendo a todos los ciudadanos que habitan en países donde sus mandatarios son demagogos.
Incluso, el alcance es tan amplio, que puede entrar en tu vida personal y jamás continuarás quejándote de que la vida es injusta.
Es necesario leer esta obra. Se la recomiendo a todos los ciudadanos que habitan en países donde sus mandatarios son demagogos.
February 13, 2024
Some parts of this were really compelling and others were not. I didn’t find a lot of Plato’s arguments to be super convincing but I think there were some small chunks of wisdom in there and it made me really think about what justice means
Read
September 25, 2020This was not it. Major aggression towards plato right now.
April 30, 2024
A very accessible translation with an illuminating interpretive essay (the last 100 pages).
October 20, 2020
I had read Books I-IV of the Republic four times, but now I have read the whole book for the first time. It was surreal and thrilling to read the new material I hadn’t read before. I will need to read books 5-10 again to really let it all sink in, but it was great to get a first pass at it and discuss it with Tessa and Josh.
I’m not going to write a huge essay on the Republic here, but I’ll write some of my thoughts in hopes of remembering some of my takeaways and existing questions.
Book 5:
- We’re past the initial philosophizing. The material is denser, more serious, more questionable than in books I-IV. Socrates proclaims that he is less certain of his beliefs, and is worried about failing to tell the truth.
- The question of women isn’t fully resolved. The standard of judgement—nature—is set, but women’s full nature is not fleshed out.
- The goal of the city is reasserted—ultimate harmony in the city, a perfectly functioning civil life. Explains some of the steps taken.
- Previously, I was told the difficult censorship and mythmaking required in Bk 3 is evidence of the “impossibility” of the city in speech, and speaks to the compromises needed between the perfect city and allowing for individual happiness. It’s a little more complicated here. This may be true, but certainly isn’t de facto true. It would require an analysis of the people’s receptiveness to philosophic rule, which isn’t explicitly done.
- The Forms. My main takeaway was thinking about what the world must have looked like to Socrates. So often, what seems true, is not true. But with reason, you can figure out what is true. Ultimately, something is going on, and we can figure out what is going on, and be mistaken or correct. The Forms reflects this belief, as evidenced through Socrates’ experience using philosophy to refine his beliefs. “How can something actually be true?” Maybe I should reread the Theaetetus.
Book 6:
- Adeimantus is shrewd. His protest at Socrates argument’s slowly leading the followers astray exactly mirrors my experience as a freshman in CC.110. Plato acknowledges this frustration, but keeps it in there. Learning the truth requires self-propelled understanding, you can’t just be told the answer. Got to wrap yourself up in all sides.
- The ship analogy. I really liked this. It has given me a much more clear-eyed view about the possibilities and limits of political life. Democrats and Republicans are hopelessly far from the truth because it’s a completely different game. I guess this is the contradiction Bloom is talking about, that philosophy and political rule are antithetical to each other, yet need each other.
Book 7:
- The cave. I always took the cave analogy to mean we can never reach the truth, but that’s not the intention. It’s about the ecstasy of philosophy, and the difficulty of the philosopher king.
- The philosophy students originally are old, and we let them do young person things while they’re young. Later, we realize we have to start them young, because a lot of labor is involved. One thing that’s emphasized a lot is the nature. Not everyone will or can be a philosopher. But you have to go against nature a little bit, even for the best students. How against nature should we be going, is the question? What’s the end goal here?
Book 8:
- Learning about the defective forms was far more enlightening than I expected. Plato has a very good grasp of democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and you certainly can’t pity the city in speech on grounds of ignorance of alternatives. To what extent have things changed today compared with Plato, and his arguments? Do the structural things like separation of powers and stuff for our mixed democracy-oligarchy systems make them better than plato’s city? Well, even Plato said the city in speech can’t last forever. Is what we have the best we can do? Of course not, but Plato isn’t going into detail on all that. The general effect of each system is pretty clear. And the question of how this affects humans is always at the forefront.
- How about the corresponding types of humans? Less convincing to continue the metaphor, but the idea of different dispositions is still true. I’d like to learn more about “what’s possible” for a human—how close to being a real philosopher can you be? Or will you always have your desires and irrationality. Is getting rid of love worth it? There’s a lot of stuff out there I haven’t read.
Book 9:
- Is the tyrannical man really that bad? Yeah, he is. It’s amazing we don’t work harder to repress him within us. Never quite convinced.
Book 10:
- No imitation. This is a tough one. It’s definitely true that art distorts the truth with only an eye for affectation. When we listen to music or read a book, the part we enjoy isn’t the truth of it, it’s just the pull of our emotions. I wonder how this relates to beauty and the nobility of desiring beauty. Symposium?
- There’s a lot to be learned about hte nature of things. Without experiencing a lot of music and art, we won’t truly understand those situations. Music can express things you can’t understand otherwise. You should be cautious of art, but you can also embrace it as a learning opportunity.
- There’s a difference between things being banned in the city for the people due to civic necessity, and allowing the fully responsible philosopher to indulge in some beauty. Maybe?
- Religion. Rewarded in the afterlife. this is like the Phaedo. The easy interpretation is that even for the die-hard philosophers, they still won’t be fully convinced, and you need an afterlife too, to fully convince them. I don’t htink this is for the city, I think it’s for Glaucon, Ad, and T. Does ths same apply for banning art, though? Not sure.
I’m not going to write a huge essay on the Republic here, but I’ll write some of my thoughts in hopes of remembering some of my takeaways and existing questions.
Book 5:
- We’re past the initial philosophizing. The material is denser, more serious, more questionable than in books I-IV. Socrates proclaims that he is less certain of his beliefs, and is worried about failing to tell the truth.
- The question of women isn’t fully resolved. The standard of judgement—nature—is set, but women’s full nature is not fleshed out.
- The goal of the city is reasserted—ultimate harmony in the city, a perfectly functioning civil life. Explains some of the steps taken.
- Previously, I was told the difficult censorship and mythmaking required in Bk 3 is evidence of the “impossibility” of the city in speech, and speaks to the compromises needed between the perfect city and allowing for individual happiness. It’s a little more complicated here. This may be true, but certainly isn’t de facto true. It would require an analysis of the people’s receptiveness to philosophic rule, which isn’t explicitly done.
- The Forms. My main takeaway was thinking about what the world must have looked like to Socrates. So often, what seems true, is not true. But with reason, you can figure out what is true. Ultimately, something is going on, and we can figure out what is going on, and be mistaken or correct. The Forms reflects this belief, as evidenced through Socrates’ experience using philosophy to refine his beliefs. “How can something actually be true?” Maybe I should reread the Theaetetus.
Book 6:
- Adeimantus is shrewd. His protest at Socrates argument’s slowly leading the followers astray exactly mirrors my experience as a freshman in CC.110. Plato acknowledges this frustration, but keeps it in there. Learning the truth requires self-propelled understanding, you can’t just be told the answer. Got to wrap yourself up in all sides.
- The ship analogy. I really liked this. It has given me a much more clear-eyed view about the possibilities and limits of political life. Democrats and Republicans are hopelessly far from the truth because it’s a completely different game. I guess this is the contradiction Bloom is talking about, that philosophy and political rule are antithetical to each other, yet need each other.
Book 7:
- The cave. I always took the cave analogy to mean we can never reach the truth, but that’s not the intention. It’s about the ecstasy of philosophy, and the difficulty of the philosopher king.
- The philosophy students originally are old, and we let them do young person things while they’re young. Later, we realize we have to start them young, because a lot of labor is involved. One thing that’s emphasized a lot is the nature. Not everyone will or can be a philosopher. But you have to go against nature a little bit, even for the best students. How against nature should we be going, is the question? What’s the end goal here?
Book 8:
- Learning about the defective forms was far more enlightening than I expected. Plato has a very good grasp of democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and you certainly can’t pity the city in speech on grounds of ignorance of alternatives. To what extent have things changed today compared with Plato, and his arguments? Do the structural things like separation of powers and stuff for our mixed democracy-oligarchy systems make them better than plato’s city? Well, even Plato said the city in speech can’t last forever. Is what we have the best we can do? Of course not, but Plato isn’t going into detail on all that. The general effect of each system is pretty clear. And the question of how this affects humans is always at the forefront.
- How about the corresponding types of humans? Less convincing to continue the metaphor, but the idea of different dispositions is still true. I’d like to learn more about “what’s possible” for a human—how close to being a real philosopher can you be? Or will you always have your desires and irrationality. Is getting rid of love worth it? There’s a lot of stuff out there I haven’t read.
Book 9:
- Is the tyrannical man really that bad? Yeah, he is. It’s amazing we don’t work harder to repress him within us. Never quite convinced.
Book 10:
- No imitation. This is a tough one. It’s definitely true that art distorts the truth with only an eye for affectation. When we listen to music or read a book, the part we enjoy isn’t the truth of it, it’s just the pull of our emotions. I wonder how this relates to beauty and the nobility of desiring beauty. Symposium?
- There’s a lot to be learned about hte nature of things. Without experiencing a lot of music and art, we won’t truly understand those situations. Music can express things you can’t understand otherwise. You should be cautious of art, but you can also embrace it as a learning opportunity.
- There’s a difference between things being banned in the city for the people due to civic necessity, and allowing the fully responsible philosopher to indulge in some beauty. Maybe?
- Religion. Rewarded in the afterlife. this is like the Phaedo. The easy interpretation is that even for the die-hard philosophers, they still won’t be fully convinced, and you need an afterlife too, to fully convince them. I don’t htink this is for the city, I think it’s for Glaucon, Ad, and T. Does ths same apply for banning art, though? Not sure.
July 8, 2009
It seems somewhat silly to rate The Republic. Despite what one thinks about the book, it’s impact is unquestionable on Western thought. There is temptation to give it 5 stars with little elaboration to hint at its profound transfer of wisdom or 1 star to show how modern thought has made Plato irrelevant.
With those disclaimers out of the way, I give it 4 stars.
To the casual reader, such as myself, The Republic is not an easy read. However, it is much easier to digest than many of Plato’s other works. The Republic challenges Socrates to create a value system rather than simply dissect others which seems more prevalent in the majority of Plato’s dialogues. Most people are familiar with the Socratic method, but the simple fact remains that dialectical arguments flow much better in conversation than in writing. Plato’s insertion of spurious arguments and presuppositions can slip in unnoticed if one doesn’t remain diligent in reading.
But what makes this book great, at least this particular edition, I credit Allan Bloom. I specifically sought out Bloom’s translation as I had heard it was considered the definitive translation. His translator notes stress the importance of translation without interpretation. He doesn’t fall into the hubristic trap of believing that the modern reader (or translator) has moved past Plato’s arguments and therefore is in a position to interpret and present a condensed, or more succinct, version of Plato’s position. Bloom provides ample endnotes providing valuable explanations as to phrases and societal references. I would have preferred that they be inserted as footnotes for more seamless reading, but that is a minor editorial complaint.
However, it is Bloom’s 130 page interpretative essay included at the end which was most informative. Having dissected this work word-for-word, Bloom provides a narrative return through The Republic. While going through Plato’s writing, it’s easy to feel, as Dennis Danvers stated in The Watch
With those disclaimers out of the way, I give it 4 stars.
To the casual reader, such as myself, The Republic is not an easy read. However, it is much easier to digest than many of Plato’s other works. The Republic challenges Socrates to create a value system rather than simply dissect others which seems more prevalent in the majority of Plato’s dialogues. Most people are familiar with the Socratic method, but the simple fact remains that dialectical arguments flow much better in conversation than in writing. Plato’s insertion of spurious arguments and presuppositions can slip in unnoticed if one doesn’t remain diligent in reading.
But what makes this book great, at least this particular edition, I credit Allan Bloom. I specifically sought out Bloom’s translation as I had heard it was considered the definitive translation. His translator notes stress the importance of translation without interpretation. He doesn’t fall into the hubristic trap of believing that the modern reader (or translator) has moved past Plato’s arguments and therefore is in a position to interpret and present a condensed, or more succinct, version of Plato’s position. Bloom provides ample endnotes providing valuable explanations as to phrases and societal references. I would have preferred that they be inserted as footnotes for more seamless reading, but that is a minor editorial complaint.
However, it is Bloom’s 130 page interpretative essay included at the end which was most informative. Having dissected this work word-for-word, Bloom provides a narrative return through The Republic. While going through Plato’s writing, it’s easy to feel, as Dennis Danvers stated in The Watch
"Let's start with The Republic," he says, and does, and continues on from there without pausing for my Let's not. I try to listen, but it all sounds to me like it's just another lemming trek down the it-doesn't-matter-what-you think, only-how-you-think road over the it-doesn't-matter-what-you-do precipice to drown in a sea of precious pointlessness.But there is more. There is irony. There is sarcasm. There is a response to societal criticism. With Bloom’s careful assistance, I saw layers to The Republic that I would never have seen otherwise. Yes, there is the metaphor of the cave, talk of justice and forms of government. But there is much more that a true critical reading of this book can reveal. And though few of us will ever bother to gain the same level of familiarity with the times and thoughts of Socrates, Bloom willingly shares his.
August 9, 2026
*Read for Hudson — Read the Bloom translation, first time I read I read the Grube Translation*
Reading this work in this program completely changed my impression of it. I now certainly subscribe to the Straussian idea that the philosopher-kind idea and the calipolis is not Plato's true recommendation for a political system but more of a thought-experiment to demonstrate the limits of politics. I certainly need to think more about and deeply consider how the political life and the philosophic life interact in this work. The general impression is that political involvement is necessary to living the philosophic life because one needs to ensure a regime type that is conducive to philosophic activity. But I am also now wondering if perhaps political life (or just involvement in society more generally) is actually necessary for philosophy. If one truly strives to know the Good, would one not need to have an understanding of the human things? And can one know the human things without being involved in them? There are a few passages that make it seem to me that creating the city in speech is partially a method of moving toward knowledge of the Human, so it would make sense to me that being involved in politics to some degree would help advance an understanding of Man as such.
I am also now very interested in the role eros plays in the philosophic life specifically in this dialogue. I was previously under the impression that eros was entirely subordinated in this dialogue because of the likening of the erotic soul to a tyrannical soul, but now I am not entirely so sure. If the philosophic life is a quest toward knowledge, and thus a striving for and desire of knowledge, is not the philosophic life necessarily erotic? And how does this relate to the fact that the calculating part rules in a well-ordered soul?
Very excited to keep considering this for many years to come. Incredible work.
Reading this work in this program completely changed my impression of it. I now certainly subscribe to the Straussian idea that the philosopher-kind idea and the calipolis is not Plato's true recommendation for a political system but more of a thought-experiment to demonstrate the limits of politics. I certainly need to think more about and deeply consider how the political life and the philosophic life interact in this work. The general impression is that political involvement is necessary to living the philosophic life because one needs to ensure a regime type that is conducive to philosophic activity. But I am also now wondering if perhaps political life (or just involvement in society more generally) is actually necessary for philosophy. If one truly strives to know the Good, would one not need to have an understanding of the human things? And can one know the human things without being involved in them? There are a few passages that make it seem to me that creating the city in speech is partially a method of moving toward knowledge of the Human, so it would make sense to me that being involved in politics to some degree would help advance an understanding of Man as such.
I am also now very interested in the role eros plays in the philosophic life specifically in this dialogue. I was previously under the impression that eros was entirely subordinated in this dialogue because of the likening of the erotic soul to a tyrannical soul, but now I am not entirely so sure. If the philosophic life is a quest toward knowledge, and thus a striving for and desire of knowledge, is not the philosophic life necessarily erotic? And how does this relate to the fact that the calculating part rules in a well-ordered soul?
Very excited to keep considering this for many years to come. Incredible work.
June 12, 2024
I'll be thinking about this book for a long time, and I've imbibed its lessons in many ways unknowingly all my life. Comforting to know that some things about human nature, society, and government haven't changed in 2500 years, and thought-provoking to realize how many things have for better (the casual pedophelia references were jarring) or for the worse (honor or virtue were once a social good just as sought after, if not more so, than money or fame). 5 stars for the first chapter on justice, the chapter dealing with Plato's infamous cave, and the twist ending in chapter 10. Some middle chapters read like 3 star (or worse) filler, for sure, and the socratic method gets so tiring you have to find the humor in it or you'll give up.
Key points: injustice is self defeating, governments naturally corrupt as people do, the best don't want to rule while the worst campaign for it, and even Plato agreed that ultimately virtue can only be really instilled along with some belief in the soul's eternal existence.
Key points: injustice is self defeating, governments naturally corrupt as people do, the best don't want to rule while the worst campaign for it, and even Plato agreed that ultimately virtue can only be really instilled along with some belief in the soul's eternal existence.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 239 reviews