I bumped into a friend at Readings in Carlton a week or so ago and she was holding this – there was a stack of them on their cheap table and my mate George had read it when it came out and had recommended it, so I picked it up to read on the tram ride home. At the time I was planning to do my final English assignment on something to do with Plato’s Cave and so it made sense to grab this. The book was okay, but not as good as I had hoped.I have mixed feelings about Plato, particularly the Plato who wrote this particular little book that changed the world. He believes in castes and distrusts democracy. He doesn’t like artists (particularly poets) and would have them escorted away from the ideal society. He believes that rulers should lie to their subjects (their subjects being a bit daft and better off being treated like children) and he anticipated all of the ‘life rejecting’ (as Nietzsche would have it) aspects of Christianity by about 300 years.On the other hand, he does cover a hell of a lot of ground in the Republic and some of the ideas here are remarkably powerful. The central idea is that knowledge and the good are the same thing. This is an idea that has a very strong appeal and despite the reticence this author has in accepting it (and I have to admit that I have as well) it is a bit like Keats’ – ‘“Beauty is truth, truth beauty“– that is all / Ye know on Earth and all Ye need to know’. – Even though we actually know this isn’t all we need to know, it is hard not to be attracted to a world in which this would be all we need to know.It is a very long time since I read the Republic. In fact, it is probably 15-20 years. I have misremembered a lot of it. I had thought that the Allegory of the Cave was in the last book, when in fact it is closer to the middle. I mention this because I thought (and have told people) that I struggled all the way through the book when I read it and wanted to give up, but was rewarded by finally getting to read the Cave – when, in fact, this memory is completely wrong (despite how clear it has been). I’m always surprised when my memory plays tricks like this on me – it is a very uncomfortable feeling.There is a lot of the Republic that makes no sense at all – all the strange calculations, for instance, about how much better a Philosopher King is when compared to a Dictator (that would be 729 times better, according to Plato) and his calculations on to how long the ideal society could be expected to last – I can’t remember how long this would be, but yonks. I remember while I was reading it thinking all this was terribly strange so I was glad to read this book telling me the author also found the calculations completely incomprehensible. The points made about democracy are a bit disturbing. Plato and I would not agree on this at all, as I do think democracy is the best political system on offer and that what we need is more democracy, not less. However, I do see the point that democracy can mean appealing to the basest instincts of people. There is a disturbing quote on this point: “A world in which democratic leaders like to spend their energy on facelifts, cosmetics and suntans while simultaneously mourning for lost respect would have held no surprises for Plato.” Hmm - Silvio Berlusconi, anyone?This book gives three interpretations of the Cave Allegory: a religious, poetic and scientific interpretation. These are interesting in themselves and show how Plato’s cave is a bit like a mirror, where people can look in and see pretty much themselves reflected back at them. To me the allegory has always been about education. The first line of book seven directs the reader’s attention to the idea of education, although in reading it again recently I was also surprised at how vague this reference was too. What I’ve always found striking is how alienating and painful Plato feels education can be. Plato makes this point repeatedly in his description of the journey both out of the cave and back into the cave. It is a journey of pain, alienation and finally death. That one must always return after education to the world one has left is also a remarkably potent idea that Plato makes very plain. Why is this important? To me I think people tend to think education is always and in all circumstances a positive boon for those receiving an education. I think it is important to note that sometimes having the scales lifted from one’s eyes makes others see us quite differently too. When I was teaching adult literacy a number of years ago I read that many people who finally learnt to read found that they ended up no longer married. Their partners suddenly felt that they had no further role in the relationship. I have also heard of people who stopped attending classes so as to avoid just such an outcome. I have also been told that women starting a degree later in life tend to end up separated at some stage over the time it takes to gain their degree. Education changes lives, but sometimes we have no idea just what changes will be wrought.If I had more time I would read all of Plato’s dialogues – and one day I am determined to – Socrates is a great hero of mine, even if he says some remarkably silly things at times. This was an interesting little book, although not really what I was expecting.
hmmmmm........Having just read the Republic I read this hoping to gain a clearer but deeper understanding of the it. I rarely read secondary texts and went in with fairly high expectations, thinking that clarifying and expanding was kind of the point of secondary texts.But this book seemed to be aimed at doing two other things: it seemed to want to point out how wrong Plato's conception of just about everything is, and also to offer a lighter alternative for people that didn't want to read the Republic itself. Not only do I think that these two approaches seem to be at odds with each other, but I urge anyone who is interested in the Republic to at least read the sun, divided line and cave bits of the Republic: they are well written, short, really bloody famous and give a very good meditation on the nature of a priori truths and their relation to epistemology.A lot of the time I felt that Blackburn was reluctant to get into the very philosophical parts of Plato, preferring a lot of the time to modernise the arguments and then deal with these modern versions. I also felt at times that Blackburn was lazily dismissive of Plato appealing to a supposedly enlightened common sense to a degree that was at times Moorian. However there is an over arching thesis to this book that I think is quite impressive in which he points out the inconsistency of - again modern - Platonists. In one example he shows how at times Platonists will play down a lot of the dodgy political theories by defending that they are only their to represent their ethical counter parts, but it could hardly be expected that we should read the Republic with no political message at all.overall I think Blackburn spends too much time pointing out obvious bad arguments in the and doesn't spend enough time playing with the much more tricky but much more thought provoking truths at the heart of the Republic.Incidentally the translator's introduction by Desmond Lee in the Penguin edition managed to achieve a great deal of what I was hoping Blackburn would, and also I think gives a much more two sided, fair handling of the beardy old sage and his charming barmy book.
What do You think about Plato's Republic (2007)?
The philosophers are classified by the community. No financial perspective. Their opinion, the basis analysis society.al-Farabi and Plato and Karl Marx are included. Plato to lead Society wise man accepts. al-Farabi , full human supernatural, and Karl Marx collective wisdom.Plato imagines society as a pyramid board. Gold, silver, copper, characters and symbols in this scenario.Wealth is not a the criterion.The elements individuals than intellectual value, classification society. Obviously, pure thoughts and the rational are Society golden section. intellects and much more. Above in this Society, being rich is not. Instead individuals gold, must decisions and welfare of the community are valued. These golden ideas of, are shared., But this the process can be seen only on paper,Action in the outside world, wealth and power, politicians such as Alchemist, ideas, copper, gold as shown., And Society deluded., And communities in democracy and equality will not. Justice and the quality of justice from Plato, equality not numeric., but the truth equality talent, does publication of justice in society., and will create a utopia. if, context is equal to the golden creative idea.
—Vahid
One of the most readable and accessible introductions to Plato I have read in a long time.Whilst Blackburn is a Plato critic I think that he is a fair one and he is open about his stance from the beginning of the book. Hs use of modern day examples makes Plato come alive and seem particularly relevant to today. I have found in the past that commentaries on Plato make you feel relieved that you do not have to read the original, in this case I feel inspired to return to the original texts. I have recommended this to some of my A Level students, particularly the chapters one the cave and belief and knowledge which are particularly easy to read.
—Nikki Mcgee
Blackburn is up front about his distaste for The Republic, so the editors of this series are the ones to blame for asking him to write it. It isn't so much a "biography" as a collection of critical opinions, all of which are justified to some extent but leave the reader wondering what the point of such a collection can be. There are some interesting historical tidbits scattered throughout the book, but overall not much enlightenment. On the positive side, Blackburn is an amusing writer and doesn't take himself too seriously.
—Thomas
