Why has no one read this?

What marvellous dexterity of wit enabled you to acquire this great perfection in such a short time? There is much, indeed, to admire in your words, but there is nothing that I admire more than your magnanimous disregard of any opinion--whether of the many, or of the grave and reverend seigniors--you regard only those who are like yourself. And I do verily believe that there are few who are like you, and who would approve of such arguments; the majority of mankind are so ignorant of their value, that they would be more ashamed of employing them in the refutation of others than of being refuted by them.

>its epistemological, ontological and political assertions are ridiculous and borderline totalitarian.
This desu
There's nothing to be learned from this text

I would do a bit of preparation and no, apology is not going to suffice. I would at least add the Euthyphro and the Phaedo, possibly the Meno as well.

As for people not reading the Republic, I think most are scared by its length. But Plato is usually very fun to read: the complexity comes out once you try to really get what he's saying, but for the rest, most dialogues can be enjoyed even if you don't study them too seriously.

read Zenos Republic instead. it's severely underrated but way better and in fact a critique of Platos work

Even if he was, what would be wrong with it? This is philosophy not your plebeian political science class. In philosophy people discuss about whether certain forms of government can be good or not, they don't just assume they are because 'muh nazi were ev'llllll'

Because it's fucking BORING

That's just the honest truth. All there smart ass literary types don't like this because it's boring

I tried. It's too smart for me.

>'muh nazi were ev'llllll'

Nice strawman logic

Have you actually read Plato's Republic? No private property, no democratic oversight, no checks and balances, no separation of power, practically no opportunity for social mobility, ruling class, etc etc - How is this not totalitarian?

Which translation should I read?

The Republic of Plato (3rd Edition) by Adam Kirsch, translated by Allan Bloom (Basic Books)
or
The Republic by Plato, translated by Desmond Lee (Penguin Group) [2007]

They're pussies

>Because despite its historical influence, its epistemological, ontological and political assertions are ridiculous and borderline totalitarian.
>Nice strawman logic
Here is the thing senpai. This is a 10 book argument for a set of ideas. You are just throwing out label after label and then dismissing the entire work based on the labels you handed out without and justification.
>'this is gay so it's bad'
Is a better, less politically charged example of what you are doing.

And yes I agree his state would be somewhat totalitarian, i'm not hearing why that's a bad thing.

>'No private property, no democratic oversight, no checks and balances, no separation of power, practically no opportunity for social mobility, ruling class, etc etc - How is this not totalitarian?'
>'i'm not hearing why that's a bad thing.'

Do you really want me to explain why all these things are bad, or are you intelligent enough to figure out why these elements are bad for the creation of a stable and functioning society?

That's a heavy book to read in Finnish.

>lit
>not knowing latin and/or ancient greek
Srsly, are you seriously serious?

Most people read a book or two from it in high school desu, famalam.

Because he talks about all the flaws in democratic governance and the global Whig elite don't want people thinking about that

>Do you really want me to explain why all these things are bad
You are posting in a thread, about a book that makes a strong argument for all of those things.
>Do I really have to explain my ideas? Why can't everyone just accept that i'm right?

>are you intelligent enough to figure out why these elements are bad for the creation of a stable and functioning society?
It's called a discussion user. If you don't want to discuss then don't post. You are just being autistic about it.
All of those things you listed were missing from most functional society's during platos time.
You are arguing from 2300+ years of human history. For platos time it was a pretty good idea for government.
The republic is a blueprint for a theoretical society. It's not black and white. Look at what stemmed from it.

First of all; Authoritarian yes, totalitarian no. Totalitarianism is explicitly linked modernity. The term even belongs in its origin to the 20th century, introduced exactly to denote the dark sides of the project of modernity. I suggest reading up on Arendt, first of all. I think she said what needs to be said about totalitarianism the best.

Secondly, what is your point with your original critique? Yes, the idea of the ontological completely grounding politics is a type of idealism that belongs solely to antiquity. So does his epistemology/metaphysics.

But is the validity of engagement determined by the truth value of a piece of work? I can come up with several alternative arguments for why people should bother with classical antiquity, its thinking and metaphysics. I don't think many people who engage seriously with philosophy reads Plato as though his ouvre should be based on its objective truth value.

*judgement of his ouvre that is.

Pathetic. Beta-male commie get out. Just because you can't handle personal responsibility and accountability doesn't mean actual functioning humans don't deserve the right. Get fucked, four-eyes

>For platos time it was a pretty good idea for government.
Nobody is disputing that, but because it was a good idea 2300 years ago doesn't imply that it's a relevant or respectable idea for contemporary society to consider.

>doesn't imply that it's a relevant or respectable idea for contemporary society to consider
Correct. It's still a fun read and it is interesting to see how it's core ideas impacted future civilizations. That is what we are trying to discuss.

Bloom

Thanks

It's a good idea now.

look, either fucking way you are going to be lost during the republic, it's going to be hard and you are not going to feel like you got a whole lot out of it but it is one of the "keystone" plato texts like laws that will flip all the right switches deep down in your brain and you will find a new ease and clarity in reading plato afterwards

Check out the episodes on Plato from the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast. He'll set you on the right path.

nothing to fucking explain to you

you literally epitomize not getting it. you have no idea what plato is or even a semblance of what the importance of his works are (hint: it's not philosophy 101 answer: "question everything")

read the bible or something and sort yourself out because right now you are not even a pseud

and yeah, I am attacking you without any content or addressing of your arguments because I am actually the stupid one and you are the bright star that remains unrefuted in it's magnificent claim about the dated, unintelligent and unnecessary ontology epistomology, rhetoric, and politics of Plato

Why?

Thrasymachus did nothing wrong.

If I read Euthyphro, Phaedo, Meno, and the Republic, will I come out of it with an understanding of Plato?

>getting this angry about somewhat legitimate criticisms of Plato

Did he offend your feelings?

Need at least Symposium lad

Apology probs too, and Crito

Aristotles politics is better