I gotta say, I really enjoy Plato’s Republic so far. We’ve only done stuff from a more imaginary standpoint (I know, I know, subject to debate) in terms of Greek literature so it is quite refreshing to have something besides just a dramatic/actiony story for our next read.

Plato had a concept of an ideal state based on logic and living in accordance with certain duties to more than one’s self. He wanted a governing power that founded on a trained elite who would govern wisely and in which art and music would be forbidden that destroyed one’s individuality. After having seen how his friend and teacher Socrates was executed by the Athenian democracy, Plato disillusioned himself with the notion that men could govern over themselves freely since they were prone to being tricked by demagogues, swindlers, and con men into acting against their true intentions… Granted, the book certainly is impractical in depicting the kind of world Plato would have liked to see but all the same there is no disputing that, as one of greatest philosophers who ever spawned on this planet, we still find ourselves arguing not whether we can ever achieve a perfect, utopian state, but whether we can expect a government and society to hold integrity in regards to its character and policy.

That is the real issue at stake The Republic presents to us… at least from what I can see thus far. That being said… this was a tough slog so far. I had to read over at least 2-3 times to derive true understanding from this book so far… Plato often seems to transcend us in thinking even at our best, eh? The footnotes in the copy we have to read helped a bit though.

If only we had presidential hopefuls that were even a fraction as wise and laconic as Socrates… sigh….

What are your guys’ thoughts so far? I’m reading through a few of your blog posts so expect comments soon…

So much like everyone else, reading this first half of Plato was quite challenging to say the least. I’d say that the first book was definitely harder to get through than the rest of it though. I have never read any of Plato’s work, but I now know that it will most likely be philosophical, or require quite a bit of detailed analysis (not saying there’s anything wrong with that). I also felt that I had to focus really hard to clearly understand what was going on. Basically, it was kind of a task to concentrate while reading this book.

But anyways, much like other people who have posted, I too, have heard about Socrates prior to reading the Republic, but I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of him yet. Speaking on the Republic as a whole, I realized that this book proposes many questions that people have yet to find the answers to. The Republic’s meaning is still undefined which further strikes people’s attention.

What particularly caught my interest was the heated conversation of what it means to be just and unjust with Socrates and Thrasymachus. Reading their continuous refutes of each other’s beliefs and statements was of great interest to me. However, I did find that for many aspects of their debate, there were oftentimes moments where I would need to re-read a certain argument a few times, just to fully understand and make sense of it. But asides from that, I found their different perspectives intriguing. For instance, like how Socrates argued that justice is a virtue and injustice is a vice, whereas Thrasymachus disagreed and stated that those who are unjust will prosper over those who are just. Another aspect that was of interest to me was the way Socrates argued. I’m not too sure about what everyone else though, but I found his questioning somewhat like a lawyer interrogating the accused. From what I read, Socrates had a very persuasive and intimidating approach, which clearly seemed to work, upon having Thrasymachus blush in the end. With that being said, I particularly agree with Socrates’ views on justice.

Another idea that was of interest to me was the concept of a perfect city and Socrates’ perspective regarding societal ways. According to Socrates, an idealistic state is restricted to censorship of religion, ideas, and stories, just to list a few. I do not necessarily agree with his views, though I enjoyed viewing this topic from a different perspective; to challenge my stance.

Although being a difficult read, the Republic so far is an interesting book that definitely needs to be further analyzed. See you all in the seminar!

I have never read Plato’s work personally, though I have heard of him and my IB Theory of Knowledge class did go over his Allegory of the Cave by discussion and by watching ‘The Matrix’ (Only the first one). So going into The Republic, I was rather unprepared for the amount of processing my poor brain had to do.  At this point though, I am enjoying the Republic, though I am becoming steadily uneasy at the content being presented within the dialogue as it does not conform to my views on government (not that I could possibly give a good judgement on).

Having been in IB Theory of Knowledge, we briefly went over Plato and Socrates in discussion, which I am quite used to.  However, the rhetoric and logic presented within The Republic astounded me and yet made sense.  The reasoning was sound and I found myself agreeing with what Socrates/Plato was arguing about.

As Book 1 ended though and Book 2 began, my interest only grew.  I mean, creating a perfect city in which to test their theory of justice and injustice would do that to your interest.  However, as the book began to progress, my eyes went O_O and a crinkle appeared on my brow.  I agreed with the points of a good polis or city such as it should not be so luxurious.  As roles began to be addressed, I still agreed with what they were suggesting.

It was when they reached what the Guardians should learn and not learn that I began to become increasingly worried.  I admit, my modern perspective is not allowing me to understand Plato’s view, but in my opinion, censorship of certain aspects is never a good thing.  The very reason I am able to write good essays was because my parents encouraged me and exposed me to a variety of works and a variety of views.  The training of the guardians, just reminded me of the Hitler Youth.  Basically training dogs of the state.   I also disagreed that the state would work because it was so logical.  My view (though unproven) is that humans do not always think logically and therefore, they do not always do logical things.  The city Plato is suggesting would work provided everybody was logical enough to understand his/her role, but humans who do not think logically would not be able to stand this city.  The only way this city would possibly work, is if the humans were replaced by Star Trek’s Vulcans who are supposed to always think logically.  Thus my admiration for Plato turned sour.

Yet, I also understood some of Plato’s points about the Guardians.  In real life, during the time of the Roman Empire, their was an Emperor called Marcus Aurelius (You may have heard of him in Ridley Scott’s Gladiator in which Maximus (Russell Crowe) announces himself as a general of Marcus Aurelius).  He was in fact, as most historians describe him, philosopher turned king and was one of the most successful Roman emperors.  Reading Plato actually made me realize that Marcus Aurelius’s reasons for suppressing the Christians may have possibly been the same reason why Plato is arguing for the suppression of Homeric texts (mega speculation here and going on a wild limb).  The populace, or the guardians should not get ahold of the wrong information and it must be censored or in the Christians case, wiped out.

For people wondering why I said Oh the Irony in my title.  Here is why.  For a piece of work to be called Republic, implying a government made up from elected members of a populace, Plato’s polis, is extraordinarily totalitarian and NOT a republic, and yet this work is called Plato’s Republic.  Oh the irony.

So all in all I found Plato’s Republic a very interesting read, though the content that was suggested furrowed my brow for a couple of hours.

Honestly, I really enjoyed reading (the first half of) Plato’s republic. It confused and intrigued me, and what most interested me about it was the way in which arguments were presented. Being a former member of the debate club, (yes… I’m just that nerdy) the many different devices one may use to convince someone to agree with your opinion has always spiked my curiosity. So, although I have to get it off my chest that the lack of quotation marks seriously frustrated me at some points as I tried to keep track of who was talking, I really liked this… book? I find I’m now hesitant to call each of our readings a “book” or define them in any way other than simply as literature as they may be merely disguised as a book, and in fact be something else.

            I have of course heard a lot about (Plato’s portrayal of) Socrates before opening Republic, but was still not quite prepared for his incredibly unique way of arguing. I found myself having to reread certain passages to try to follow the chain of arguments leading to the opposition being convinced or unconvinced. Hopefully that wasn’t just me? There were, however, many familiar aspects I found in way the debate went on, the defining of terms being one.

            I tried to view the description of this grand, ideal state without any particular bias of my own opinion, for a change, as I really just wanted to focus on the development of the argument and the presentations of ideas. However, this didn’t entirely work, and I’d still like to comment on a few literal elements of the argument. First off, the idea of anything being perfect is absolutely ridiculous, just to get that opinion out of the way. But Socrates valiantly tries to describe and envision the ideal state, and spends a great deal of time describing it, and the people within it. I found the suggestion of every person having only one occupation interesting, as I know very few people who have stuck with one profession their entire life, having known it was right for them from the beginning of their education. This is assuming everyone will only ever want to do that one thing which they are best at. However, I must also say that I was glad at last to have seen an argument put forth advocating that women are equal to men, and therefore the positions of “guardians” should be multi-gendered. One thing I’m not entirely sure of is, is Socrates using this ideal city merely as a device to prove his argument, or is this supposed to be something he genuinely believes to be feasible?

Over and out,
Camille