|
Editorial Review Book Description 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 correct text itself there is also a rich and valuable essay--as well as indexes and a glossary of terms--which will better enable the readerto approach the heart of Plato's intention. ... Read more Customer Reviews (38)
Great Political Theory and Philosophy
The main arguments of The Republic are so well known that they hardly need restatement in this review. The central issues in this book are of great importance, but one should also take note of the side issues that Plato raises in political theory and philosophy.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this book is its coverage of issues in theoretical politics. The Republic covers so much ground in Political Theory and Political Philosophy that it is hard to see any other great thinker as completely original. Plato hinted at or mentioned ideas in politics later developed by Rousseau, Marx, Nietche, Hayek... All political theorists should cite Plato, because he thought of practically everything of importance in political theory.
Personally, I find Rousseau more interesting as a pure political philosopher, but that is not saying much. Rousseau was an absolute genius. Plato had brilliant insights in political philosophy, and he anticipated important elements of Rousseau's work anyway.
The Republic does have an Achilles heel: economics (or political economy). The problem here is not so much that he was wrong about economics, but rather than he passed over this subject. Much of what Plato wrote about his ideal Republic is hard to defend in light of economic theory. Some might think me unfair for criticizing Plato by modern standards, but general economic laws were neither different nor unintelligible in Plato's time. Furthermore, Aristotle had a few insights that fit with what we now know as economics. How could someone as brilliant as Plato not see the issues in his book from "the economic point of view"? After all, key elements of modern economics boil down to common sense. Furthermore, there are subtleties to modern economics that raise serious problems with his idea of rule by a philosopher-king.
The lack of economic reasoning in The Republic does not really detract much from its greatness. Given the situation in the ancient world, it was only natural that great thinkers would focus on politics, and pass over economics. Economic issues did not really become apparent until the first wave of Globalozation began, so Plato should have focused on politics instead. That being said, Plato's Republic stands as THE most important book of Political Theory ever written.
This edition of The Republic is important because it includes Alan Blooms interpretive essay. Bloom makes you think more deeply about Plato. This book is a must-have for anyone with serious interest in political or interdisciplinary academic interests.
Best Literal Translation
Thank you Dr. Bloom,
i'll simply say i've never enjoyed reading the Republic that much. It's indeed the best literal translation for such a great work, and i encourage everyone to have it.
a translation of substance and a great edition
i add my praise of bloom's *translation*, which avoids many of the historical pitfalls in rendering plato's language and concepts and, on the whole, is idiomatic, consistent and accurate. the few criticisms of the translation posted here seem to me to turn on bloom's educational background, which is a silly cavil, or on his translation, which as far as i can tell is objectionable only to readers lacking greek themselves.
i especially praise bloom's *edition*, which provides excellent endnotes to some of the disputed passages and, in particular, clarifies the meaning of key greek words (eidos, doxa, nomos, arete, politeia, etc.) and the translation difficulties the words create. i cite for example his gloss on greek "thymos" (passion) which bloom represents as "the seat of anger" (a common straussian misconception) but consistently translates as "spirit" or "spiritedness", which is about as accurate as english can render its complex meaning. the point is that without this kind of annotation the reader is hostage to the translator's whims. bloom discloses his choices at every turn, so that the reader is aware of the translator's challenge, can approve or evaluate his translation choices, and has the context for further exploration of plato's ideas if that seems fruitful. in this respect, the endnotes are at least as stimulating as the text.
the edition also includes a very useful index to proper names and a separate index to subjects (really, a synoptic index of concepts such as "virtue" or "justice"), which allows the reader to retrace page by page the steps in the argument that hinge on particular words (in the original greek) or specific philosophical ideas. of course the edition uses the berlin marginal numbering which is the standard method to cite passages in plato, but the indices are conveniently keyed to pages or endnote numbers.
finally, bloom's apparently controversial interpretative essay does presume a careful and skeptical reader. while clearly tendentious in certain respects it is also an excellent gloss on the outline and argument of the dialog; a kind of cliff's notes for the mature reader. i see this essay as a culmination in the invitation -- through the text, the notes to the text, the inquiry through the indices, and the questions all these raise -- to encounter the book in a spirit of self inquiry and self education. the book is a fine example of "paideia".
my disappointments are with the typeface, which is a bit small and stodgy, with the paper (too rough and heavy), and with the binding: as with many basic books paperbacks, the glue will split and shed pages if the book is used too familiarly.
materials aside: for a modern american reader with little knowledge of classical greek or of the three centuries of philological and literary scholarship laid over it, this is far and away the best english translation and nonscholarly edition for getting back at least part of the original meaning of plato's supreme political tract, with all the tools necessary for a lifetime of self study.
A note on the unending work of Political Philosophy: Republic, Statesman, Laws
A great source of perplexity to students beginning to study Plato's political philosophy is the question of how the three political dialogues -Republic, Statesman, Laws- hang together. In this brief note I would like to touch on how these three dialogues might be related. At first blush it might seem they have very little in common. Indeed, they do not even share a common primary speaker! The Republic has Socrates, the Statesman has the stranger from Elea, and the Laws has an Athenian Stranger as the primary speaker. We tend to think of the Republic as a revolutionary utopianism, the Statesman as a somewhat aloof, and occasionally absurd, philosophical description of politics, and the 'Laws' as a conservative paean to the traditional virtues. But is there a way of showing that these three dialogues (and the three speakers) do not merely contradict each other but rather correct each other thanks to Plato's allowing each dialogue to represent only a partial truth that we readers must put together with the others in order to see the whole Plato was aiming at? Let's start at the beginning:
Political philosophy truly begins with Plato. There is a crisis in Athens, various sophists and rhetoricians are spreading disrespect for the traditional gods and morality of Athens. In this manner, Athens reminds us of modernity and its fundamental disbelief in traditional values. In 'The Republic' Plato has Socrates (remember, Socrates is only another character in Plato's dialogues, and for all interpretive intents and purposes he is nothing more; the Platonic dialogues are not to be confused with biography) silence the rhetor Thrasymachus by demonstrating the chaos that ensues if everyone does as he pleases. That is, Thrasymachus learns from Clitophon and Polemarchus parroting his points (Book I) the consequencesof his sophistry of power. The consequence being that rhetors and sophists will no longer be necessary (or employed) if everyone comes to think exactly as Thrasymachus does... Socrates then demonstrates to Thrasymachus that seductive rhetoric (and, of course, seductive rhetors) will have a role to play in the newly made Platonic Republic. Socrates, with his city built in speech, successfully seduces Glaucon, his brother, and the rest to accept a suitably modified 'city of pigs' - that is, a city in which all mind their own business. The 'city of pigs' (Book II, 372d), of course, is how Glaucon describes the moderate city that the philosopher Socrates is perfectly content to live in. The rest of the Republic, as I said, is little more than Socrates skillful seduction of Glaucon and the rest to accept a modified version of this moderate city. That is, they are to come to accept a city in which everyone minds his own business and has only one job, which is what Socrates' definition of justice demands. But is Socrates' moderate city, once modified, still moderate?
Another question that each of us must decide as we read this text; does Plato's Socrates deceive? - Oh my! At 389b-d Socrates tells us that the ruler of the City, and only he, may lie. Now, are Philosophers rulers? But the whole point of the Republic is to show that there can be no peace or justice until philosophers do indeed rule! Thus we are led to suspect that it is only the Philosopher-King who may tell 'noble lies'. But before philosophy actually rules must it not also tell lies to non-philosophers in oder to achieve the crown? Now, note that near the beginning of Book I (331e) Socrates asks if it is just to lie to the insane. But certainly, I hear many of you objecting, Socrates cannot possiblymean this of the splendid exceptional young men presently (i.e., in this dialogue) gathered around him. Indeed, later at 459c-d, Socrates seems to argue that the lying ruler is only a type of physician. Perhaps philosophical ruling is necessary only because of the sickness in the souls of non-philosophers? What!?! ...It really is quite remarkable how often the insane do not even know they are insane! Now, is the 'treatment' that the philosopher-physician Socrates demonstrates in this dialogue always and everywhere effective? No, for instance, there is nothing that either converts or silences Callicles in the 'Gorgias'. Thus Socrates, and his utopian revolution, fails to bring peace to Athens. (True, at the end of Plato's Symposium 'peace' finally reigns, but everyone has been seduced by words and sedated by drink.) Indeed, the historical Socrates is in fact understood by Athens to be part of the problem, and not a solution. Thus the later Plato elects to modify (or correct) the famous, garrulous Socrates with the silent, unknown Eleatic Stranger.
In Plato's 'Sophist' and 'Statesman' the taciturn Eleatic Stranger is forced to speak. Philosophy must battle Sophists and Statesmen over what can be said and what can be done. The Stranger demonstrates (i.e., acts out, not explains) the difficulty of seeing (and showing) the differences between Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher. Also, note that in the 'Sophist' he shows us how difficult it is to `know' as opposed to (and distinct from) making while in the Statesman he shows the impossibility of mixing (or weaving) flawed types of people into an unflawed whole. Since the weaving of flawed types into a supposedly 'unflawed' whole is an example of making the resulting 'unflawed whole' cannot, in fact, be an example of knowledge. This means that the Eleatic Stranger could not bring philosophy to the City any more than Socrates could. Thus no matter who rules the City Socrates is going to die... Also, always keep in mind that the dramatic date of the action of Sophist/Statesman coincides with the beginning of Socrates trial. Thus the Statesman ends with the Eleatic Stranger leaving the City behind and, in effect, saying to Socrates that there is nothing in the city, for us, but death. I would be remiss if I did not mention that in the 'Statesman', a rather short Platonic dialogue, there are more confusions, errors and repetitions than in any other dialogue that I am aware of. This is due to the fact that the Eleatic Stranger, unlike Socrates, views the political from the viewpoint of theoretical philosophy. From this viewpoint the political is madness itself! But does the Eleatic Stranger also tell 'noble lies'? In a sense yes, at 242b (in the Sophist) the Eleatic Stranger tells Theaetetus that everything he (i.e., the Eleatic Stranger) says is said out of regard for Theaetetus. But note that these philosophically 'noble' lies that the Eleatic Stranger is 'forced' to tell are not really said for the sake of the City; they are only necessitated by theory and pedagogy. The Eleatic Stranger doesn't seem to have the slightest interest in changing the City.
Now, be that as it may, we wonder what becomes of those that must continue to live in a world that condemns a Socrates to death? Plato rejects both the irresponsible silence of the Eleatic Stranger and the responsible silence that results from Socrates' murder by Athens. In 'The Laws' Plato has the Athenian Stranger (Socrates returned from the dead, according to Aristotle) teach the sovereignty of Nomos (law), while in Plato's 'Timaeus' Plato has Timaeus spins fabulous myths about creation and the God to enchant everyone. Thus Plato strove to save philosophy from the city and the city from philosophy by allowing philosophy to be seen revering what the city reveres - that is, laws and myths. But do note that the Laws dialogue ends with the concoction of the so-called 'Nocturnal Council' which is to have power to revise all the Laws (keep in mind that this must also mean laws regarding the gods) in the city whenever necessary. It is in this manner that the 'noble lies' philosophy tells are embodied in an institution hidden within the city itself. Thus the philosophical 'conservatism' of the aged Plato is in reality the founding document of the permanent revolution of Western Philosophy. Or, to put all this yet another way, the utopian revolution that was loudly proclaimed in the Republic has been replaced, in the Laws, by the machinations of the nocturnal council, which operates behind everyones back. Thus the 'philosophical conservatism' in the 'Laws', that has been so-often denounced by modern scholars, is in reality a call, but a call only made to to genuine philosophers, to permanent revolution!
There are those among us who are coming to believe that the 'History of Philosophy' is, in reality, nothing but the record of the maneuvers of our philosophical 'nocturnal council'. But this would be how the Platonic Revolution became perpetual philosophical reform; there is simply no end to it...
The First Communist Outlines His Program
This book has to be read, as a defense, especially by freedom loving people, because Plato outlines his "ideal" society. Think Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, today's Iran, the Inquisition, and today's American "Nanny/Theraputic State" all rolled into one mega dictatorship, with of course, the omnipotent and authoritarian "philosopher-king" in charge. Now, philosophy is a science crucially needed today, but it has to be the right philosophy. Sadly, we live in a Platonic age and the continuting disintegration of America into a fascist/religious nightmare. Let's hope the pendulum is swinging toward the antidote: Aristotle's "pursuit of happiness". Obviously, the [so far] lone commentor hasn't a clue.
... Read more
|