|
Plato: The Republic (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) |  | Author: Plato
Creators: G. R. F. Ferrari, Tom Griffith
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $15.99
Buy Used: $2.00
as of 7/31/2010 13:52 CDT details
You Save: $13.99 (87%)
New (26) Used (128) from $2.00
Seller: Yankee_Clipper_Books_
Rating:  4 reviews
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Pages: 436
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.4
Dimensions (in): 8.4 x 5.2 x 1
ISBN: 052148443X
Dewey Decimal Number: 321.07
EAN: 9780521484435
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
This is a completely new translation of one of the great works of Western political thought. In addition to Tom Griffith's vivid, dignified and accurate rendition of Plato's text, this edition is suitable for students at all levels. It contains an introduction that assesses the cultural background to the Republic, its place within political philosophy, and its general argument; succinct notes in the text; an analytical summary of content; a full glossary of proper names; a chronology of important events; and a guide to further reading.
Book Description
This is a completely new translation of one of the great works of Western political thought. In addition to Tom Griffith's vivid, dignified and accurate rendition of Plato's text, this edition is suitable for students at all levels and contains: an introduction that assesses the cultural background to the Republic, its place within political philosophy, and its general argument; succinct notes in the text; an analytical summary of content; a full glossary of proper names; a chronology of important events; and a guide to further reading.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 The ultimate Socratic dialogue? November 17, 2008
Ashtar Command (Stockholm, Sweden)
3 out of 7 found this review helpful
"The Republic" is Plato's classical utopia, and perhaps one of the most controversial political texts ever written. It's so absurd that some people deny that Plato really meant it! Strange Aristotle never noticed. And yet, those who believe that "The Republic" shouldn't be taken literally probably have a point. Plato himself didn't take "The Republic" absolutely literally either.
"The Republic" describes a hierarchical caste society ruled by a militarized, collectivist elite. The elite itself is divided into different segments, the highest echelon being that of the philosopher-kings, enlightened thinkers who contemplate the heavenly world of Platonic forms, and precisely for that reason are fit to rule society as well. Below the philosopher-kings stand the Guardians, essentially the military caste. Famously, both the philosophers and Guardians live under conditions of total communism. They own no private property, are reared together, and hence don't know their parents or siblings. Strictly speaking, there are philosopher-queens as well, and also female soldiers, since the elite has gender equality (a point that has puzzled modern feminists). Below the elite groups stand merchants, artisans and farmers, but no slaves. The castes are (almost) hereditary, eugenics are used to ensure the fitness of the elite groups, and the population is induced to believe in fantastic, religious myths. The myths are noble lies welding this strange society together. Did I leave something out? Oh, and the poets are banished from the city! In other words, the ideal society described in "The Republic" looks like a curious blend of Sparta, Egypt and India (at least the two former societies would have been known to Plato).
So where do we go from here? The most moderate interpretation is that although Plato did regard "The Republic" as the best society, he didn't really believe that such a society was possible. It was a deliberate utopia. This raises a lot of intriguing questions, such as how Plato imagined the best *possible* society to look like, or what function "The Republic" was supposed to have. The first question is to some extent answered in "The Laws" and the Seventh Epistle, where Plato advocates a mixed constitution. What the answer to the second question might be, I honestly don't know. Perhaps nobody does. A wild guess: the point of Plato's utopia was to explore certain ideas without hindrance, throw certain concepts into as sharp relief as possible, in other words, do exactly what modern utopian novels do, in contrast to political utopias meant to be taken seriously.
I think that Plato clearly saw both the dilemma of democracy, and the dilemmas of tyranny and oligarchy, what we would simply call "dictatorship". Plato saw his teacher Socrates being persecuted by the regime of the Thirty Tyrants, but he also saw him being executed by the demos. The twin dilemmas of both dictatorship and democracy were starkly visible in the life of Socrates. The perennial problem of democracy is: what happens if the people vote the wrong way? (In Athens, the problem was even more pronounced, since many positions were filled by lot!) The perennial problem of dictatorship: how do we stop a ruler from becoming a tyrant, if the people can't even vote? Plato's solution to the problem was to balance the demos and the elite by a mixed constitution. In "The Laws" he took Sparta and the Cretan city-states as his concrete models, but he might just as well have harkened back to the days of Solon, or made use of the systems in Carthage or Republican Rome.
Plato's concrete solutions aren't ours, of course. Even the Athenian democracy he criticized was a far cry from our modern conceptions of democracy. From our vantage point, a mixed constitution on a Spartan or Cretan model actually looks even worse than the Athenian system. Note also the irony that "The Laws" lack the "socialist" and "feminist" traits of the Platonic utopia. Also, there is slavery in Magnesia, the name given by Plato to his realistic Cretan city-state, while there doesn't seem to be any slaves in "The Republic". And yet, despite the obvious differences between Plato's time and ours, the dilemma is still with us! Modern democracies attempt to solve it by combining universal suffrage with a division of powers, by a federal structure, or by a strong constitution guaranteeing basic human rights, a constitution that cannot be changed, at least not by a simple majority. Our methods may be different from the Platonic ones, but we are still trying to solve the same dilemma as he experienced in the aftermath of the Peloponessian War.
It could further be argued that no clever constitutional solution is possible in the long run, if the citizens loose their sense of civic duty. And it further seems that civic duty is possible only in a relatively small state, without too large income or property differentials between the citizens. Indeed, even Plato's moderate city-state in "The Laws" insists on the citizens having roughly equal amounts of landed property, property that can be neither bought nor sold. Of course, our concept of citizenship is much broader than the Platonic one: women and even resident aliens are citizens, and there are no slaves. Yet, Plato's general point seems to be correct.
So far, I have only touched on those points in "The Republic" and "The Laws" that could be creatively developed without offending our modern sensibilities too much. But, of course, "The Republic" also deals with other issues, more disturbing ones to our liberal ears. Are people really born equal? Are there innate differences between individuals? Is it always permissible for the rulers to tell the truth? Do societies need myths and noble lies? Ironically, Plato also asked questions that should disturb some conservatives: Given that innate differences are individual rather than sex-related, does this mean that the sexes are equal? And what's so good about private property and foreign trade anyway?
Perhaps that's the main function played by "The Republic". It's a work of provocation, a work meant to shock us into boldly questioning our preconceptions, a work that's the very opposite of a noble lie. Pace Popper, "The Republic" might actually be Plato's most Socratic work!
[This isn't really a review of this particular edition, but a general comment on Plato's dialogue, and its relation to some other works, but placing it here felt like the most natural option.]
Reason allows us to live for something October 1, 2009
Michael A Neulander (VA)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
I read Plato's Republic for a graduate philosophy class. I paid close attention to Plato's thesis of courage in his Republic, which I expound below. I found G. M. A. Grubb's translation to be the best of several I read.
Plato's project in the Republic is to form the "perfect" society. "Reason allows us to live for something." Through reason we set goals and organize our lives around achieving goals. Plato argues that the government's duty to citizens is to provide justice, and educate citizens both men and women. The state's social structure stood for justice and was divided into three groups. Rulers- those trained to use reason and posses wisdom. Guardians/ Soldiers have courage/spirit. Artisans have moderation of appetites. Plato's ideal ruler, the "Philosopher King," should be 50 years old with 15 years of government experience and should have studied science and philosophy. The ruler must show a mastery of Arete = excellence vs. akrasia= weakening of will, or no self-control. The ruler should think logically not emotionally. In the Republic to insure excellent people Plato advocated selective breeding of excellent unmarried people who lived in communes, who did not own property.
Plato describes five types of government in the Republic:
1. Aristocracy- Plato considered this the best form of government; aristocracy embodies wisdom of the philosopher king.
2. Timocracy- military government embodies virtues of honor and courage.
3. Oligarchy- rule by a rich elite, their vice is greed, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
4. Democracy- mob rule, and chaos, it represents akrasia people are slaves of their desires and have little self-control.
5. Tyranny- this is the worst form of government. The vice is selfishness, one power crazed person in control.
Plato's purpose in the Republic is not to perfect the character of people as an end but only as a means to an end. Plato's aim has a definite effect on his definition of courage. I find this is especially the case when exploring his ideas on how to educate the Guardians of the city to act courageously. Plato's goal is to match a person's character disposition to a job they are naturally inclined to perform in the city. Once he [Plato] has introduced the city in 369 b-d, he immediately advances the thesis, which is to dominate the rest of the Republic, that the needs of its inhabitants can best be met if each person in it performs that single task, and that single task alone, for which he is naturally suited.
With this view of human nature in mind, in Plato's model society, he divides the citizens into three classes. Rulers from whom the "philosopher king," will be selected, Guardians who are soldiers to protect the state, and the rest of the citizens classified as Artisans This division of citizens precipitates a discussion by Plato on the four virtues that these citizens will bring to the state. In the history of philosophy this becomes known as the "four cardinal virtues"; wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. With this introduction of courage as a virtue, Plato takes another crack at defining courage. What is also important to observe is that he introduces a new element, that of education, in his definition of courage that was absent from his early dialogue Laches.
Plato espouses the idea in the Republic that the Guardians need to possess certain natural qualities; such as strength, speed, and courage. It seems odd that Plato classifies courage as a natural quality possessed by certain people. This automatically presupposes that not all people can practice the virtue of courage. Plato's successor Aristotle, will argue against this notion in his EN. In addition, Plato argues that in order for people to be courageous they must also have an aggressive thumos [passion], which makes both people and animals fearless and determined. Plato fears that the Guardians could be susceptible to using their passion of aggressiveness against there own people. Therefore, he counsels that the Guardians who naturally possess aggressiveness have to also naturally possess the opposite characteristic of gentleness as well, so that their aggressiveness will only be used against the enemy and not their own citizenry.
This dialogue is significant in that it helps to flesh out Plato's notion of what ultimately makes a person courageous. First, Plato argues that the goal of education, which he compares to a sheepdog, is to watch over the Guardians; thus, with the proper education he believes the proper balance between exciting their aggressiveness and subduing it in the Guardians can be achieved. Second, Plato believes that if aggressiveness is properly excited by physical training, then the Guardian will be courageous. If overly excited they will be like a wild beast devoid of grace and will become ignorant. Finally, Plato argues in his education section of the Republic, that to counter the possibility of a Guardian developing an over excited passion of aggressiveness, it is necessary to teach the Guardians literature and music during the same time they undergo physical training.
Thus, Plato hopes this balanced approach to educating the Guardians will then lead to courage being a controlled and calm act of endurance in battle, instead of a foolhardy lust for blood letting and an emotional reaction to war. Not only does Plato spend a significant amount of time advocating for the tools necessary to subdue the passions of the Guardians in book three of the Republic, but another important point in Plato's philosophy to consider is that since he believes that a Guardian's aggressiveness is influenced by literature he is very concerned by what type of literature is taught to them as well. Plato is very concerned that the archetypical heroic warrior Achilles, as depicted in Homer's epic poem the Iliad along with those depicted in Greek tragedies performed on stage, are bad examples for the Guardians to emulate. Consequently, Plato advises that heroes of Greek literature should be depicted as thoughtfully courageous and in control of their anger and physically resilient warriors. Thus, Plato seems to be using the term andreia [courage] to cover (at the least) both courage proper, which can only exist in some kind of unity with the other virtues, and raw mettle or aggressiveness, which can exist in conjunction with various vices. Plato in book four of the Republic does move on from his study of thumos as the prime motivating force to act courageously, to actually defining the virtue of courage. Plato defines courage as a person's ability to subdue their aggressiveness by the orders of their reason in regards to what they should be fearful of regardless of their own feelings of pain or pleasure. Plato's expounded definition of the virtue of courage is that a courageous act is an amalgamation of a person's natural passion of aggressiveness and properly educated rational beliefs over what is worthy regarding the possibility of losing their life or limb over.
Very happy customer February 25, 2010
J. Kang
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Thank you so much for the quick delivery of this book. It was in excellent condition.
 Understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Griffith translation August 21, 2008
Thomas Miller (Californie)
11 out of 11 found this review helpful
This version of the Republic (translated by Tom Griffith) is pleasant and readable; it definitely has its moments and would probably be a good way to first encounter the dialogue. But do not use it for serious study, since the translation can be quite free and sometimes confusing. For instance, the word usually translated as "advantageous" (sumpheron) in Thrasymachus's argument is rendered as "good for." This is a nice attempt to capture the meaning in a natural way - but I personally wouldn't play around with the word "good" in a translation of the Republic.
|
|
|
|
| |
