Plato's Republic

Use an actual example of the text where this happens,don't just sit and whine ebacsue you don't understand it.

Also, OP, read the Allan Bloom translation.

Liked it more than I thought I will.
Yes, Socrates does reach out far and misses sometimes, but god, have some historic distance on this work. Don't take all of it so seriously. In general his conclusions are very logical and make sense. The book is filled with witty examples and has a great symbolic ending.

Btw read some Foucault about architecture rn and French boys can't even compare lol
Most modern philosophy is just a reminder how great Plato and Aristotle were.

Try to win me over to the Grube or Bloom translation, guys. Why is one better than the other?

I understand it, it is just lackluster because it is improperly outlined. I expected more out of the foundation of western philosophy.
>Where do we stand now, Simmias? If all these absoulte realities, such as beauty and goodness, which we are always talking about, really exist...does it not follow that our souls must exist too even before our birth...Is this the position, that it logically just as certain that our souls exist before our birth as it is that these realities exist and that if the one is impossible, so is the other?
>It is perfectly obvious to me, Socrates, said Simmias, that the same logical necessity applies to both. It suits me very well that your argument should rely upon the point that our soul's existence before our birth stands or falls with the existence of your grade of reality. I cannot imagine anything more self-evident than the fact that absolute beauty and goodness and all the rest that your mentioned just now exist in the fullest possible sense. In my opinion the proof is quite satisfactory

I have no stake either way. I don't know Greek, so I can't comment on which is better in terms of accuracy. By the time I read Bloom, Grube had already made me a Plato convert, so I didn't find as much of that beautific magic in Bloom as maybe I might have.

Only argument I can make for Grube is that his translations are cheaper and more readily available than Bloom.

But really, you should read whatever makes you want to read Plato. Bloom, Jowett, Grube, whoever.

I started reading the republic...wish I had more time to dig into it but I found it really comfy. Is it like that the whole way through? All this time I was scared of diving into philosophical works. I read the pre-socratics and found it interesting though mostly unintelligible.

That quote is everywhere though.

... hence

WHY?! WHY MUST YOU TORMENT ME SO WITH THESE SOCRATIC TEXTS? All I want to do is come here for postmodern experience that will break down nodes of meaning but I am constantly recommended to read these Greeks with their call to "virtue" and philosophical platitudes. Can I never intertextualise just like the Simpsons, will I ever know the what lay beyond the simulacrum and enter the Matrix? Will my concrete poetry ever blow up on instagram and make me jouissance?

>poetry
>hates the Greeks

So it begins

Syracuse wanted couches.

good post

No.

But I still say you should read it, just to understand that particular side of the argument.

Yep.

Don't read it, Plato already disowned everything said there in The Laws.

Bloom has the superior translation.

>error 404
If I could interject here, I think you meant error code 2 desu. That's the stderr output for file not found in Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. You see...Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

Get the Complete Works by Hackett if you really enjoy reading Plato. It also contains Grube's translation of The Republic. I haven't read Bloom's translation, but I heard good things about it.

its also on the western canon wiki page

Bloom is good. His book also contains an interesting essay in the back. Pic related is also good.

>it is perfectly obvious to me
>I cannot imagine anything more self evident
>in my opinion the proof is quite satisfactory

*deezghustshting

I'm going through it too and I just got to book X.
Books XVIII and IX are kind of a mixed bag, and Socrates says some of his most outlandish ideas, some of which seem strangely arbitrary and stupid (spoiler: The most just man is exactly 729 times as happy as the most unjust man)
But as always there are interesting stuff. Most of what he talked about regarding the four types of government seemed like bollocks though, maybe someone who understands it better tahn me can tell me why it's not.

kek I feel the same. Maybe we are brainlets user

It is the best work I've ever read.

>wannabe-pasta

>wannabe
opinion descarted

It's great, but read some other Plato before

>most important piece of writing next to the bible and Plato's dialogues
>still being studied worldwide after 2400 years
>is it gud?

NAH OP IT SUCKS LMAO

Ok good, saved me $10

Doesn't mean it's good.

The ideas itself are disgusting.

Why do I assume that you came to that conclusion as a purely emotional response, not really considering the logic behind it?

Oh dear.... that user should have been wary to cross swords with an INTJ such as you...

Because then you can conveniently dismiss me?

I've considered the logic, I don't much care for it. What I know is that collectivist ideas have throughout history failed in spectacular ways, and having a 'benevolent ruling class' dictate your life for you doesn't seem as fun or as efficient as freedom is.

>considered the logic
I'm getting much of this from Bloom, but the Platonic dialogues are just that, dialogues. They aren't philosophical treatises that outline a comprehensive and systematic framework. You have to treat them as what they are, a mixture of art and philosophy. That means reading with a careful eye to the historical context, how the drama unfolds, and why certain characters (because that's what they are) agree and disagree at particular junctures. Of course some of this too depends on what period of Plato's writings you're looking at. It's not until the middle and later works that Plato starts to outline a more comprehensive theory of the forms (though it is still disputed as to whether he ever took a dogmatic position on this), whereas part of the point of the earlier works is to portray Socrates as he was. But the point is that "the logic" isn't immediately contained in a set of propositional statements made by Socrates or any other character. There's a reason that most of the early dialogues end in aporia (which is why it makes even less sense to say you've considered the logic and rejected Plato). He just isn't philosophizing the way 21st century analytics write journal articles.
With that said, you'd be an idiot to think that Plato has nothing valuable to say even if you have "considered the logic" and you still reject his theory of the forms or his claims about the soul. It's how you end up with a tradition that thinks justified true belief is knowledge-- by not reading the Thaetetus (which is cited in Gettier's paper).

It is precisely his later work that I am most critical of. More specifically The Republic, where he has Socrates sympathizing with totalitarianism when in fact it was his own ideas that ultimately led him to support brutal violence and the oppression of truth.

The "only" reason to read The Republic is so you can say that you've read The Republic.

Meant to

Much of what I've said above is applicable to the Republic and the rest of the later work. Socrates is not the one who comes up with the regime, as if this were his picture of how a city should be run. He guides Glaucon and Ademantus through their ideas, and shows them what it would take to come up with a so-called "perfect" regime on their terms. It's not at all clear that Socrates/Plato endorses said regime, and in fact part of the point might be to show how impossible it would be to put into practice. You would need to turn to The Laws for an account of how Plato thinks the city should be organized. I would highly recommend reading Bloom's essay on The Repbulic, and also David Krell's essay "Reading Plato after Nietzsche and Co."
None of this is to say that Plato is right about everything or is beyond criticism. But the idea that the "only" reason to read The Republic is for the cred is just dumb (see my comment about the
Thaetetus). Those who have been able to offer the most interesting criticisms of Plato (Nietzsche and Heidegger to name two) have been extremely careful readers of him.

Reddit

My last sentence was hyperbole. Sort of.

What is clear is that Plato completely rejected democracy, insisting that it eventually leads to a tyranny. His own ideas however have far more totalitarian streaks.

I believe the person to have come up with the best critique of Plato is Poppers.

>he doesn't know about Socratic irony
>he thinks Plato chews all answers for him in a simple "This is my answer, dear reader, now fuck off"
>he doesn't understand the dialogue form and the cultural background of Greece
Let me guess, you are slightly alt right and started to read Plato to understand muh white culture right?

I do not understand this way of thinking. Recognizing Politeia as a supreme work of art and philosophy is not the same as endorsing the political views of Plato. Nobody believes it would be a good thing to seperate children from their parents and to collectively raise them etc. I do not understand people like you. Why can't you read somthing without constantly trying to figure out where it aligns with your own views? That is so boring. Nobody gives a shit about your simple minded views about muh collectivism is totalitarianism or whatever. The greatest philosopher of all time stands before you, and you need to shut up and listen.

I see this a lot in Philosophy freshmen. They come to the class and hear for the first time about Kant's critique and they instantly think they can refute it lmao. Just shut up and listen, cretin.

Sure, it's well written, but like I said, I think the ideas are garbage. Lots of shitty things come in pretty packages.

I wouldn't want a lot of people to be reading that though, since most people who fawn over Plato (like the philosophy freshmen you mention) are pretentious, fascist twirps.