What do you think?
Rate this book
Plato's Dialogues #4
The Republic
Presented in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and three different interlocutors, this classic text is an enquiry into the notion of a perfect community and the ideal individual within it. During the conversation, other questions are raised: what is goodness?; what is reality?; and what is knowledge? The Republic also addresses the purpose of education and the role of both women and men as guardians of the people. With remarkable lucidity and deft use of allegory, Plato arrives at a depiction of a state bound by harmony and ruled by philosopher kings.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 401
29.4k people are currently reading
308k people want to read
About the author
Plato
4,628听books8,168听followersPlato (Greek: 螤位维蟿蝇谓), born Aristocles (c.鈥�427 鈥� 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years鈥攗nlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years鈥攗nlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 6,535 reviews
February 9, 2011
Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.
Seriously.
And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.
Every single one of his works goes like this:
SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here鈥� this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"
The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.
Seriously.
And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.
Every single one of his works goes like this:
SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here鈥� this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"
The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.
December 5, 2011
All the criticisms of Plato are valid. He raises straw arguments. He manipulates discussions unfairly. He doesn't offer realistic solutions. And so on.
But he is still, and for very good reason, the most influential philosopher in Western civilization. He makes people think. Most authors we read today are trying to persuade us to agree with their point of view. Plato, not so. He wants you to disagree with him. He wants you to argue with him. He wants you to identify the fallacies in his arguments (and some are deliberately fallacious). In short, he wants you to do the most difficult intellectual exercise there is. He wants you to think, and to think deeply.
The other thing to realize about Plato is that he is an exquisite poet and craftsman. There is nothing accidental about what he writes; there is nothing superfluous. Even the most minute seeming points are there for good reason. Part of the joy of reading Plato for the third, fourth, fifth time is to see each time a bit more about what he is doing and why he is doing it, to come closer to appreciating his extraordinary genius and encountering ever more deeply this incredible mind.
But he is still, and for very good reason, the most influential philosopher in Western civilization. He makes people think. Most authors we read today are trying to persuade us to agree with their point of view. Plato, not so. He wants you to disagree with him. He wants you to argue with him. He wants you to identify the fallacies in his arguments (and some are deliberately fallacious). In short, he wants you to do the most difficult intellectual exercise there is. He wants you to think, and to think deeply.
The other thing to realize about Plato is that he is an exquisite poet and craftsman. There is nothing accidental about what he writes; there is nothing superfluous. Even the most minute seeming points are there for good reason. Part of the joy of reading Plato for the third, fourth, fifth time is to see each time a bit more about what he is doing and why he is doing it, to come closer to appreciating his extraordinary genius and encountering ever more deeply this incredible mind.
May 11, 2025
Plato's "The Republic", is a great but flawed masterpiece of western literature, yes it makes sense, mostly, some of it. "I am the wisest man in the world because I know one thing, that I know nothing", said the smart man ... Socrates. Plato is writing for Socrates, his friend and teacher. Late teacher, since being forced to commit suicide by the uncomfortable citizens of Athens ( the famous poisoned cup of hemlock), for corrupting the minds of youth. Socrates didn't believe books were as effective as lectures, big mistake. Socrates advocates complete state control of everything, land, schools , businesses, homes, and even children to be taken away from their parents and raised by the state. In other words, an early form of communism. Plato agreed but Aristotle didn't , he knew only parents would love their children , which kids need. Most of the book is dialogues between various men as how to establish a perfect state. Socrates / Plato wanted Greece ruled by philosopher kings. With a professional army to back them up. An unreachable goal, as 24 centuries later, has shown. Greed is the primary motivation of the human race, but people keep on trying to reach the elusive "Utopia", and failing forever? Socrates the wise man, was correct.
August 25, 2021
螤慰位喂蟿蔚委伪 = The Republic, Plato
The Republic is a Socratic dialogue, written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning justice, the order and character of the just city-state, and the just man.
It is Plato's best-known work, and has proven to be one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory, both intellectually and historically.
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦噩賲賴賵乇蹖禄貨 芦噩賲賴賵乇蹖鬲 卮乇讴鬲 賲胤亘賵毓丕鬲蹖 爻倬乇貙 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕丨賲丿 鬲賵讴賱蹖貙 丿乇 爻丕賱 1334貙 丿乇 170氐禄貨 丕孬乇: 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 丿賵丕夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 跇賵卅賳 爻丕賱 1976賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 噩賲賴賵乇蹖貨 丕孬乇: 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賮賵丕丿 乇賵丨丕賳蹖貨 丿乇 爻丕賱賴丕蹖 1335 賵 丿乇 爻丕賱 1348賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 鬲賵爻胤 亘賳诏丕賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 賵 賳卮乇 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 648氐貨 賵 鬲賵爻胤 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲 毓賱賲蹖 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 丿乇 爻丕賱 1368賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 賵 丿乇 爻丕賱 1379賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 賵 趩丕倬 賳賴賲 丌賳 丿乇 爻丕賱 1383貙 趩丕倬 丿賴賲 1384貙 賵 ...貨 賵 趩丕倬 趩賴丕乇丿賴賲 丿乇 爻丕賱 1392 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴貙 賲賵囟賵毓 賳賯丿 賵 鬲賮爻蹖乇 噩賲賴賵乇蹖鬲貙 毓賱賵賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 讴賴賳 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 蹖賵賳丕賳 - 爻丿賴 趩賴丕乇賲 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿
毓賳賵丕賳: 噩賲賴賵乇蹖 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貨 丕孬乇: 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿丨爻賳 賱胤賮蹖貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕亘賳 爻蹖賳丕貙 1353貙 丿賴 噩賱丿 丿乇 蹖讴 賲噩賱丿貨 丿乇 趩賴丕乇丿賴 賵 丿乇549氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丿賵乇賴鈥� 丌孬鈥嵷ж� 丕賮鈥嵸勜ж焚堎嗏€屫� 鬲鈥嵷必€嵸呪€嵸団€� 賲鈥嵷€嵸呪€嵷€嵷斥€嵸嗏€� 賱鈥嵷焚佲€嵺屸€屫� 乇囟鈥嵷� 讴鈥嵷з堐屸€嵷з嗏€嵺屸€屫� 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 1357貨 丿乇 卮卮卮 噩賱丿貨 噩賱丿 蹖讴: 丌倬鈥嵸堎勨€嵸堏樭屸€屫� 讴鈥嵷臂屸€嵷€嵸堎嗏€屫� 倬鈥嵷辟堌€嵷и€嵸堌必ж斥€屫� 賱鈥嵺屸€嵸嗏€嵷臂屸€嵷斥€屫� 賱丕賲鈥嵷斥€屫� 賮鈥嵷ж辟呪€嵺屸€嵷斥€屫� 噩賱丿 丿賵賲: 丕賵鬲鈥嵺屸€嵸佲€嵷辟嗏€屫� 诏鈥嵷辟勨€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€屫� 賲鈥嵸嗏€嵸堎嗏€屫� 賲鈥嵸団€嵸呪€嵷з嗏€嵺屸€屫� 賮鈥嵷й屸€嵷堎嗏€屫� 噩賱丿 爻賵賲: 賴鈥嵺屸€嵸锯€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€� 亘鈥嵷藏壁€屫� 丕蹖鈥嵸堎嗏€屫� 丌賱鈥嵸勨€嵺屸€嵷ㄢ€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€屫� 賴鈥嵺屸€嵸锯€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€� 讴鈥嵸堏嗏€嵹┾€屫� 賲鈥嵸嗏€嵹┾€嵷斥€嵸堌斥€屫� 讴鈥嵷必ж€嵺屸€嵸勨€嵸堌斥€屫� 丕賵鬲鈥嵺屸€嵷呪€屫� 噩賱丿 趩賴丕乇賲: 噩鈥嵸呪€嵸団€嵸堌臂屸€屫� 噩賱丿 倬賳噩賲: 賮鈥嵷й屸€嵷辟堌斥€屫� 鬲鈥嵸団€屬呪€嵸団€� 鬲鈥嵷︹€嵸堌斥€屫� 爻鈥嵸堎佲€嵺屸€嵷斥€嵷€屫� 賲鈥嵷必� 爻鈥嵺屸€嵷ж斥€嵺屸€屫� 噩賱丿 卮卮: 倬鈥嵷ж辟呪€嵺屸€嵸嗏€嵷斥€屫� 賮鈥嵺屸€嵸勨€嵷斥€屫� 賳鈥嵺屸€嵸呪€嵷и樫堌斥€屫� 讴鈥嵷臂屸€嵷€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€屫� 爻鈥嵷з呪€嵸団€屬団€嵷ж�
讴鬲丕亘 芦噩賲賴賵乇蹖禄 卮丕賲賱 丿賴 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 亘賴 乇賵卮 诏賮鬲诏賵貨 賲蹖丕賳 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄 賵 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇 丌賳賴丕 亘賴 芦毓丿丕賱鬲禄貙 芦賳賵毓 丨讴賵賲鬲禄貙 賵 芦丨賯蹖賯鬲禄貙 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 诏賮鬲诏賵蹖 賳禺爻鬲 亘丕 芦讴賮丕賱賵爻禄 丕爻鬲貨 賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿賵賲 亘丕 爻禺賳丕賳 芦诏賱丕賵讴賳禄 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 讴鬲丕亘 爻賵賲 芦趩诏賵賳诏蹖 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 倬丕爻丿丕乇丕賳 丕爻鬲禄貨 賵 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 14/07/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 02/06/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
The Republic is a Socratic dialogue, written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning justice, the order and character of the just city-state, and the just man.
It is Plato's best-known work, and has proven to be one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory, both intellectually and historically.
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦噩賲賴賵乇蹖禄貨 芦噩賲賴賵乇蹖鬲 卮乇讴鬲 賲胤亘賵毓丕鬲蹖 爻倬乇貙 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕丨賲丿 鬲賵讴賱蹖貙 丿乇 爻丕賱 1334貙 丿乇 170氐禄貨 丕孬乇: 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 丿賵丕夭丿賴賲 賲丕賴 跇賵卅賳 爻丕賱 1976賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 噩賲賴賵乇蹖貨 丕孬乇: 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賮賵丕丿 乇賵丨丕賳蹖貨 丿乇 爻丕賱賴丕蹖 1335 賵 丿乇 爻丕賱 1348賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 鬲賵爻胤 亘賳诏丕賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 賵 賳卮乇 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 648氐貨 賵 鬲賵爻胤 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲 毓賱賲蹖 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 丿乇 爻丕賱 1368賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 賵 丿乇 爻丕賱 1379賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖 賵 趩丕倬 賳賴賲 丌賳 丿乇 爻丕賱 1383貙 趩丕倬 丿賴賲 1384貙 賵 ...貨 賵 趩丕倬 趩賴丕乇丿賴賲 丿乇 爻丕賱 1392 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴貙 賲賵囟賵毓 賳賯丿 賵 鬲賮爻蹖乇 噩賲賴賵乇蹖鬲貙 毓賱賵賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 讴賴賳 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 蹖賵賳丕賳 - 爻丿賴 趩賴丕乇賲 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿
毓賳賵丕賳: 噩賲賴賵乇蹖 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貨 丕孬乇: 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿丨爻賳 賱胤賮蹖貨 賲卮禺氐丕鬲 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丕亘賳 爻蹖賳丕貙 1353貙 丿賴 噩賱丿 丿乇 蹖讴 賲噩賱丿貨 丿乇 趩賴丕乇丿賴 賵 丿乇549氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丿賵乇賴鈥� 丌孬鈥嵷ж� 丕賮鈥嵸勜ж焚堎嗏€屫� 鬲鈥嵷必€嵸呪€嵸団€� 賲鈥嵷€嵸呪€嵷€嵷斥€嵸嗏€� 賱鈥嵷焚佲€嵺屸€屫� 乇囟鈥嵷� 讴鈥嵷з堐屸€嵷з嗏€嵺屸€屫� 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 1357貨 丿乇 卮卮卮 噩賱丿貨 噩賱丿 蹖讴: 丌倬鈥嵸堎勨€嵸堏樭屸€屫� 讴鈥嵷臂屸€嵷€嵸堎嗏€屫� 倬鈥嵷辟堌€嵷и€嵸堌必ж斥€屫� 賱鈥嵺屸€嵸嗏€嵷臂屸€嵷斥€屫� 賱丕賲鈥嵷斥€屫� 賮鈥嵷ж辟呪€嵺屸€嵷斥€屫� 噩賱丿 丿賵賲: 丕賵鬲鈥嵺屸€嵸佲€嵷辟嗏€屫� 诏鈥嵷辟勨€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€屫� 賲鈥嵸嗏€嵸堎嗏€屫� 賲鈥嵸団€嵸呪€嵷з嗏€嵺屸€屫� 賮鈥嵷й屸€嵷堎嗏€屫� 噩賱丿 爻賵賲: 賴鈥嵺屸€嵸锯€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€� 亘鈥嵷藏壁€屫� 丕蹖鈥嵸堎嗏€屫� 丌賱鈥嵸勨€嵺屸€嵷ㄢ€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€屫� 賴鈥嵺屸€嵸锯€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€� 讴鈥嵸堏嗏€嵹┾€屫� 賲鈥嵸嗏€嵹┾€嵷斥€嵸堌斥€屫� 讴鈥嵷必ж€嵺屸€嵸勨€嵸堌斥€屫� 丕賵鬲鈥嵺屸€嵷呪€屫� 噩賱丿 趩賴丕乇賲: 噩鈥嵸呪€嵸団€嵸堌臂屸€屫� 噩賱丿 倬賳噩賲: 賮鈥嵷й屸€嵷辟堌斥€屫� 鬲鈥嵸団€屬呪€嵸団€� 鬲鈥嵷︹€嵸堌斥€屫� 爻鈥嵸堎佲€嵺屸€嵷斥€嵷€屫� 賲鈥嵷必� 爻鈥嵺屸€嵷ж斥€嵺屸€屫� 噩賱丿 卮卮: 倬鈥嵷ж辟呪€嵺屸€嵸嗏€嵷斥€屫� 賮鈥嵺屸€嵸勨€嵷斥€屫� 賳鈥嵺屸€嵸呪€嵷и樫堌斥€屫� 讴鈥嵷臂屸€嵷€嵺屸€嵷ж斥€屫� 爻鈥嵷з呪€嵸団€屬団€嵷ж�
讴鬲丕亘 芦噩賲賴賵乇蹖禄 卮丕賲賱 丿賴 賳賲丕蹖卮賳丕賲賴 亘賴 乇賵卮 诏賮鬲诏賵貨 賲蹖丕賳 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄 賵 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇 丌賳賴丕 亘賴 芦毓丿丕賱鬲禄貙 芦賳賵毓 丨讴賵賲鬲禄貙 賵 芦丨賯蹖賯鬲禄貙 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 诏賮鬲诏賵蹖 賳禺爻鬲 亘丕 芦讴賮丕賱賵爻禄 丕爻鬲貨 賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿賵賲 亘丕 爻禺賳丕賳 芦诏賱丕賵讴賳禄 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 讴鬲丕亘 爻賵賲 芦趩诏賵賳诏蹖 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 倬丕爻丿丕乇丕賳 丕爻鬲禄貨 賵 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 14/07/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 02/06/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
November 3, 2024
As far as I can remember, I've loved philosophy. Who hasn't dreamed of an ideal world?
"The Republic" is one of the books that you must have read; I think, if you like philosophy, I will dare to make an analogy that will perhaps make you smile, but it's a bit like reading "The Lord of the Rings." If you have to say that you love fantasy literature, this is a must.
It is an arduous and demanding reading, very challenging; the style and the turns of phrase of 2500 years ago do not make it easy to read. It will often be necessary to re-read specific sentences to ensure you have grasped the meaning of the argument.
If I have fond memories of "The Republic," it is not so much for the brilliant arguments offered to us, to be honest. However, I have forgotten the essential, even if I still remember that there is a superiority of good over evil, one of the actors defending the good and the other trying to dismantle his arguments.
What left a lasting impression on me and still serves me today will use the preparation of the "dispute" for a good part of the story. I will use almost that to avoid misunderstandings and wrong interpretations; it is the first and the only time I have seen this way of preparing a verbal game with such rigor.
Thanks to this reading, I sometimes make sure during a discussion that the meaning of the words is the same for everyone; in this sense, this book left me with something lasting in my daily life.
It is one of my rare classic readings, without going through the reading box imposed at school;)
"The Republic" is one of the books that you must have read; I think, if you like philosophy, I will dare to make an analogy that will perhaps make you smile, but it's a bit like reading "The Lord of the Rings." If you have to say that you love fantasy literature, this is a must.
It is an arduous and demanding reading, very challenging; the style and the turns of phrase of 2500 years ago do not make it easy to read. It will often be necessary to re-read specific sentences to ensure you have grasped the meaning of the argument.
If I have fond memories of "The Republic," it is not so much for the brilliant arguments offered to us, to be honest. However, I have forgotten the essential, even if I still remember that there is a superiority of good over evil, one of the actors defending the good and the other trying to dismantle his arguments.
What left a lasting impression on me and still serves me today will use the preparation of the "dispute" for a good part of the story. I will use almost that to avoid misunderstandings and wrong interpretations; it is the first and the only time I have seen this way of preparing a verbal game with such rigor.
Thanks to this reading, I sometimes make sure during a discussion that the meaning of the words is the same for everyone; in this sense, this book left me with something lasting in my daily life.
It is one of my rare classic readings, without going through the reading box imposed at school;)
March 20, 2012
My re-reading of this for my university course has led me to the same conclusions I found when I first read it a couple of years back, except this time I am fortunate enough to have understood it better than last time. My conclusions being that Plato, and through him Socrates, was very intelligent, believed he was more intelligent than everyone else (no matter how many times he declared himself unwise) and very much loved to talk. Socrates, in particular, must have been very fond of the sound of his own voice.
You can't give a book that revolutionised philosophy any less than 3 stars, even if about 70% of it features many generalisations, jumping to bizarre conclusions, and claims without good reason. And yes, Plato and Socrates had some brilliant ideas - all the more brilliant because they came up with them first - but they don't measure up to today's version of "rational thinking". Good, but outdated. I suppose the best thing about their ideas was that they laid the foundations for the next 2000 years of Western philosophy and politics.
Gender Equality?
And, though hardly feminists, Socrates and Plato were some of the first to publicly suggest that education should be equal to both genders (apart from military training) and that women should have as large a political role as men, seeing as they make up half of society. Go early Greek gender equality!! Though I suppose the line "whining and crying as if they were but women" (or something to that effect) kind of pisses on that feminist bonfire. Oh well...
Justice?
So here's some of the reasons why fails. Firstly, Socrates (the character) assumes that because one example demonstrates a certain type of relationship, then this idea can be applied to all. When he is arguing with Thrasymachus about justice, Thrasymachus says that justice is whatever the rulers decide it to be and that they use this power for their own good and the weaker (i.e. the subjects) get screwed over. Socrates then uses the example of a physician who is stronger than his patients but his agenda is only to help them. Well:
1) Even if a physician selflessly helps his patients, this does not prove that rulers have the best interests of their citizens in mind. There is not a naturally occurring relationship between the two.
2) As Thrasymachus goes on to point out, the physician is doing it for his own benefit because he is paid to do the job.
Stupidity & Contradictions
So then Socrates starts with the bullshit that doesn't get refuted because the author is on his side, of course. He says that the physician is divided into two roles: that of physician and that of moneymaker (yep). So, basically the two are separate and have nothing to do with each other... um, I beg to differ. You see? Some of the arguments are ridiculous. He also goes on to contradict himself later by stating that rulers do get a reward for ruling: money! If he had maintained his previous argument, then they should have done it anyway for the simple benefit of their subjects and moneymaking should be a separate thing entirely.
Agent vs. Act Virtue
Plato and Socrates talked a great deal about justice being an agent virtue and not just an act virtue. They believed that it wasn't good enough to act justly, you had to have a good soul as well. Makes sense until you get to where you judge people based on them having a good soul or not - and just how do you do that?
Person A: do you have a just soul?
Person B: oh yes.
Person A: Phew, let's be friends.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
And they have a very warped view of what makes a person good/just. "A just man values wisdom above all else"... does he? I imagine a person who likes to make friends with the super-smart individuals and disregard the rest to be a bit of an ass. Don't you?
You can't give a book that revolutionised philosophy any less than 3 stars, even if about 70% of it features many generalisations, jumping to bizarre conclusions, and claims without good reason. And yes, Plato and Socrates had some brilliant ideas - all the more brilliant because they came up with them first - but they don't measure up to today's version of "rational thinking". Good, but outdated. I suppose the best thing about their ideas was that they laid the foundations for the next 2000 years of Western philosophy and politics.
Gender Equality?
And, though hardly feminists, Socrates and Plato were some of the first to publicly suggest that education should be equal to both genders (apart from military training) and that women should have as large a political role as men, seeing as they make up half of society. Go early Greek gender equality!! Though I suppose the line "whining and crying as if they were but women" (or something to that effect) kind of pisses on that feminist bonfire. Oh well...
Justice?
So here's some of the reasons why fails. Firstly, Socrates (the character) assumes that because one example demonstrates a certain type of relationship, then this idea can be applied to all. When he is arguing with Thrasymachus about justice, Thrasymachus says that justice is whatever the rulers decide it to be and that they use this power for their own good and the weaker (i.e. the subjects) get screwed over. Socrates then uses the example of a physician who is stronger than his patients but his agenda is only to help them. Well:
1) Even if a physician selflessly helps his patients, this does not prove that rulers have the best interests of their citizens in mind. There is not a naturally occurring relationship between the two.
2) As Thrasymachus goes on to point out, the physician is doing it for his own benefit because he is paid to do the job.
Stupidity & Contradictions
So then Socrates starts with the bullshit that doesn't get refuted because the author is on his side, of course. He says that the physician is divided into two roles: that of physician and that of moneymaker (yep). So, basically the two are separate and have nothing to do with each other... um, I beg to differ. You see? Some of the arguments are ridiculous. He also goes on to contradict himself later by stating that rulers do get a reward for ruling: money! If he had maintained his previous argument, then they should have done it anyway for the simple benefit of their subjects and moneymaking should be a separate thing entirely.
Agent vs. Act Virtue
Plato and Socrates talked a great deal about justice being an agent virtue and not just an act virtue. They believed that it wasn't good enough to act justly, you had to have a good soul as well. Makes sense until you get to where you judge people based on them having a good soul or not - and just how do you do that?
Person A: do you have a just soul?
Person B: oh yes.
Person A: Phew, let's be friends.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
And they have a very warped view of what makes a person good/just. "A just man values wisdom above all else"... does he? I imagine a person who likes to make friends with the super-smart individuals and disregard the rest to be a bit of an ass. Don't you?
June 2, 2016
I鈥檝e gotten into the habit of dividing up the books I鈥檝e read by whether I read them before or after Plato鈥檚 Republic. Before The Republic, reading was a disorganized activity鈥攎uch the same as wading through a sea of jumbled thoughts and opinions. I had no basis from which to select books, except by how much they appealed to my na茂ve tastes. But after reading The Republic, it was as if the entire intellectual landscape was put into perspective. Reading became a focused activity, meant to engage with certain questions.
鈥淨uestion鈥� is the key word here because, in the end, that鈥檚 what Plato is all about: asking the right questions, the important questions. All academic disciplines are organized around a few basic questions鈥斺€渨hat is the nature of human cognition?鈥� 鈥渨hat are the fundamental laws of the universe?鈥濃€攁nd in The Republic, Plato touches on almost every one of them. That鈥檚 why shelving the book in the philosophy section doesn鈥檛 quite do it justice. An exhaustive list of the disciplines touched upon in this dialogue would be massive鈥攅pistemology, metaphysics, psychology, eschatology, political science, economics, art, literature, music. In fact, it would be easier naming disciplines that 补谤别苍鈥檛 touched upon.
That鈥檚 how Plato lit up the intellectual landscape for me. By posing these questions in their most basic forms, and attempting answers, he makes it clear which questions are the important ones in life, and how difficult they are to answer. And that鈥檚 why Plato鈥檚 Republic is the quintessential classic. It has everything a classic should have鈥攁 unique perspective, brilliant ideas, engagement with perennial issues, and a charming writing style. It is the greatest book of perhaps the Western tradition鈥檚 greatest thinker. I don鈥檛 care who you are鈥攜ou should read it.
Nevertheless, there are some perplexing and frustrating things about Plato. For one, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out where Plato stands in relation to his work. Unlike almost every later philosopher, Plato didn鈥檛 write didactic works. He puts his ideas鈥攕ometimes conflicting ideas鈥攊nto the mouths of the people of his day. The result is a kind of double confusion. To what extent are the ideas expressed by Socrates actually Socrates鈥檚? To what extent are they Plato鈥檚? To what extent are they anyone鈥檚? Perhaps Plato was just fond of playing intellectual games and creating philosophical pocket dramas.
Added to this is a kind of subtle irony that creeps up in several of his dialogues. In Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates complain about the evils of writing; yet Plato obviously loved to write. One of Plato鈥檚 most influential ideas is his theory of forms; yet one of the most influential arguments against the theory was put forward by Plato himself. In The Republic, as well as elsewhere, Plato repeatedly equates knowledge with goodness, and falsity with evil; yet he proposes to found his entire utopia on a massive lie. And again, in this book Plato puts forward one of the most famous arguments in history against poetry and the arts; yet Plato was one of the most artistic of all writers. Plato proposes to banish the myths of Homer and Hesiod; then Plato ends his magnum opus with his own myth. You see these contradictions again and again, which leads you to wonder: how many of his arguments are meant to be taken seriously?
奥丑补迟鈥檚 more, some of the arguments put forward in his dialogues are鈥攊t must be said鈥攆rustratingly stupid, relying on false analogies and several other types of fallacies. This would be no mystery if he was a halfwit. But the quality of his writing and the originality of his ideas make it clear that he was a genius. This again makes you wonder if he is putting forth his ideas in earnest.
There are many complaints commonly lodged at Plato (and his pupil Aristotle). Liberals criticize his hatred of democracy and freedom. Moralists complain that he embraced slavery. (A friend of mine once told me that his philosophy professor called Aristotle the 鈥渇ather of racism.鈥�) Scientists鈥攕uch as Carl Sagan鈥攄isparage Plato鈥檚 anti-empirical and mystical tendencies. Nietzsche and his followers condemn Plato for dividing up the world into self-evident good and bad. The list of complaints can be extended almost endlessly. And, it should be said, there is some justice in all of these criticisms. (But just you try and found an entire intellectual tradition spanning thousands of years, and see if you do any better!)
In Plato, I find something so valuable that it could outweigh every one of those criticisms: Plato's celebration of thinking for its own sake鈥攁rgument for the sake of argument, debate for the sake of debate. Too often, we consider intellectual activity as merely a means to some desirable end; how rarely we consider that thinking is its own reward. Vigorous thought is one the keenest joys in life. And that is why Plato is so valuable, why he still has so much to offer our world鈥攑erhaps now more than ever.
[A note on justice. Even though Plato spills much ink in trying to prove that justice is more desirable than injustice, I think the real solution is in Glaucon鈥檚 speech in Book 2, where Plato manages to hit upon the solution provided by game theory. It鈥檚 worth quoting at length.
This view鈥攑urportedly the common view of justice鈥攊s game theory in a nutshell. Cheating your neighbor is (for you) the biggest positive, since you get their resources without having to work. But being cheated is the biggest negative, since you lose both your resources and the work you invested in procuring them. Creating laws to abolish cheating is a sort of compromise鈥攁voiding the pain of being cheated at the expense of the gain from cheating. That, to me, seems like the most logical explanation of justice.
This is just one example of why it's rewarding to read Plato, because even when he's wrong, he's right.]
鈥淨uestion鈥� is the key word here because, in the end, that鈥檚 what Plato is all about: asking the right questions, the important questions. All academic disciplines are organized around a few basic questions鈥斺€渨hat is the nature of human cognition?鈥� 鈥渨hat are the fundamental laws of the universe?鈥濃€攁nd in The Republic, Plato touches on almost every one of them. That鈥檚 why shelving the book in the philosophy section doesn鈥檛 quite do it justice. An exhaustive list of the disciplines touched upon in this dialogue would be massive鈥攅pistemology, metaphysics, psychology, eschatology, political science, economics, art, literature, music. In fact, it would be easier naming disciplines that 补谤别苍鈥檛 touched upon.
That鈥檚 how Plato lit up the intellectual landscape for me. By posing these questions in their most basic forms, and attempting answers, he makes it clear which questions are the important ones in life, and how difficult they are to answer. And that鈥檚 why Plato鈥檚 Republic is the quintessential classic. It has everything a classic should have鈥攁 unique perspective, brilliant ideas, engagement with perennial issues, and a charming writing style. It is the greatest book of perhaps the Western tradition鈥檚 greatest thinker. I don鈥檛 care who you are鈥攜ou should read it.
Nevertheless, there are some perplexing and frustrating things about Plato. For one, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out where Plato stands in relation to his work. Unlike almost every later philosopher, Plato didn鈥檛 write didactic works. He puts his ideas鈥攕ometimes conflicting ideas鈥攊nto the mouths of the people of his day. The result is a kind of double confusion. To what extent are the ideas expressed by Socrates actually Socrates鈥檚? To what extent are they Plato鈥檚? To what extent are they anyone鈥檚? Perhaps Plato was just fond of playing intellectual games and creating philosophical pocket dramas.
Added to this is a kind of subtle irony that creeps up in several of his dialogues. In Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates complain about the evils of writing; yet Plato obviously loved to write. One of Plato鈥檚 most influential ideas is his theory of forms; yet one of the most influential arguments against the theory was put forward by Plato himself. In The Republic, as well as elsewhere, Plato repeatedly equates knowledge with goodness, and falsity with evil; yet he proposes to found his entire utopia on a massive lie. And again, in this book Plato puts forward one of the most famous arguments in history against poetry and the arts; yet Plato was one of the most artistic of all writers. Plato proposes to banish the myths of Homer and Hesiod; then Plato ends his magnum opus with his own myth. You see these contradictions again and again, which leads you to wonder: how many of his arguments are meant to be taken seriously?
奥丑补迟鈥檚 more, some of the arguments put forward in his dialogues are鈥攊t must be said鈥攆rustratingly stupid, relying on false analogies and several other types of fallacies. This would be no mystery if he was a halfwit. But the quality of his writing and the originality of his ideas make it clear that he was a genius. This again makes you wonder if he is putting forth his ideas in earnest.
There are many complaints commonly lodged at Plato (and his pupil Aristotle). Liberals criticize his hatred of democracy and freedom. Moralists complain that he embraced slavery. (A friend of mine once told me that his philosophy professor called Aristotle the 鈥渇ather of racism.鈥�) Scientists鈥攕uch as Carl Sagan鈥攄isparage Plato鈥檚 anti-empirical and mystical tendencies. Nietzsche and his followers condemn Plato for dividing up the world into self-evident good and bad. The list of complaints can be extended almost endlessly. And, it should be said, there is some justice in all of these criticisms. (But just you try and found an entire intellectual tradition spanning thousands of years, and see if you do any better!)
In Plato, I find something so valuable that it could outweigh every one of those criticisms: Plato's celebration of thinking for its own sake鈥攁rgument for the sake of argument, debate for the sake of debate. Too often, we consider intellectual activity as merely a means to some desirable end; how rarely we consider that thinking is its own reward. Vigorous thought is one the keenest joys in life. And that is why Plato is so valuable, why he still has so much to offer our world鈥攑erhaps now more than ever.
[A note on justice. Even though Plato spills much ink in trying to prove that justice is more desirable than injustice, I think the real solution is in Glaucon鈥檚 speech in Book 2, where Plato manages to hit upon the solution provided by game theory. It鈥檚 worth quoting at length.
[Many have believed] that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. [I.e. The evil suffered from injustice is greater than the good gained from acting unjustly.] And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of the men to do injustice.
This view鈥攑urportedly the common view of justice鈥攊s game theory in a nutshell. Cheating your neighbor is (for you) the biggest positive, since you get their resources without having to work. But being cheated is the biggest negative, since you lose both your resources and the work you invested in procuring them. Creating laws to abolish cheating is a sort of compromise鈥攁voiding the pain of being cheated at the expense of the gain from cheating. That, to me, seems like the most logical explanation of justice.
This is just one example of why it's rewarding to read Plato, because even when he's wrong, he's right.]
April 15, 2017
Is the attempt to determine the way of man鈥檚 life so small a matter in your eyes鈥攖o determine how life may be passed by each one of us to the greatest advantage? (1.344d)
I propose therefore that we inquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them. (2.368别鈥�369补)
The Republic: An Apology
鈥淭he safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.鈥澨�
~ Alfred North Whitehead
The Famous Republic
'The Republic' is either reverenced, reviled or just plain ignored. Though it keeps resurfacing, it has been pushed back often, being accused of bigotry, racism, elitism, casteism, anti-democratic nature, the list is endless. But it is beyond doubt, one of the preeminent philosophical works and has been quoted, referenced or adapted by almost all of the major thinkers since.
The ideas of Socrates have had an afterlife that is as long and varied as the thousand year journey envisioned for souls in the famous Story of Er. It is impossible to catalogue the full list of impacts but Whitehead's quote (introductory to this review) gives adequate flavor. The practical influence of Republic is more difficult to gauge than its impact on the theorizing of later thinkers - over the centuries, individuals have discovered in Plato鈥檚 works the inspiration for undertaking political or social or educational reform and have used it as the springboard for much revolutionary thought, and deeds.
Republic has inspired in addition to all the expository analysis, also countless creative interpretations, which have shaped our vision of future possibilities, limits and of extremities. Many depictions of both utopian societies and their dystopian counterparts, ranging from Thomas More鈥檚 to Jonathan Swift鈥檚 to Aldous Huxley鈥檚 to George Orwell鈥檚 , have their roots in the ideal city brought to life by Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. Contemporary films such as and may not owe direct inspiration to Republic, but they participate in a long tradition of artistic works that ultimately trace their concerns back to the political, social, and metaphysical issues raised in Republic.
But in spite of all this, the original work retains a reputation for being difficult and hard to penetrate. This has meant that the scholars have more or less appropriated this brilliantly composed treatise, and that is a pity. There is great suspense in every page as you eagerly try to work your way through Socrates鈥� arguments鈥� anticipating now, guessing now, failing now, but always on the edge of your seats at the sparkle of his wit and wisdom. The dialogues are constructed with an almost unbelievable care and subtlety. The drama is breathtaking and all-pervading, even in the stock responses to theoretical or rhetorical questions. One is never allowed to sit and absorb passively, but is forced to constantly interact with the dialogue. It is as much fun to read as a Shakespearean drama.
The Offensive Republic
Now, to examine some of the reasons why The Republic offends modern sensibilities:
Much of the contemporary discomfort with Plato鈥檚 state arises from his countenancing of censorship, a rigid caste system, etc. But these are in a way unfortunate misunderstandings. A close reading of the text would make clear that these catch-all descriptions of Plato鈥檚 state are not as representative as they are made out to be. For example, the caste system that is first to get blamed is hardly a rigid hereditary system, but a strict meritocratic system that is much more equal than anything that we have seen till date. It involves a strict battery of tests (similar to the aptitude tests of today) based on which every individual is to be judged (and opponents of IQ tests may relax - these are meant to be much more practical examinations).
Also, the popular rendering of the title as 鈥�The Republic鈥� itself is unfortunate, giving it an obvious political and ideological overtone. In the manuscripts and ancient citations, the title of Republic is given as Politeia (鈥淐onstitution鈥�) or Politeiai (鈥淐辞苍蝉迟颈迟耻迟颈辞苍蝉鈥�); Peri dikaiou (literally, 鈥渃oncerning that which is just鈥�) is sometimes listed as an alternative title.
The Misunderstood Republic
I had planned on giving a blow by blow defense of the most reviled aspects of The Republic, but that is not the point I wish to make here. The primary mistake in criticizing The Republic is to assume that it was meant to be a political treatise in the first place. It is not. The whole argument begins from a question of identifying what 鈥楯ustice鈥� is and whether it is beneficial to live a 鈥楯ust Life鈥�. This is the crux. 鈥�Why鈥� and 鈥�How鈥� to be Just and 鈥�奥丑补迟鈥� is this 鈥淛ustice鈥� anyway? That is what Socrates wants to explore. He takes detours in this exploration. He uses metaphors - of State (as larger manifestation), of Caves, etc. But they all lead us back to the same basic question.
To identify this basic concern, we need only look at the complex structure of the dialogue itself. Republic鈥檚 鈥渘arrative鈥� is structured in an almost circular pattern. This circular pattern is complex, evoking the narrative patterns of epic poems such as Iliad and Odyssey. Most basically, the dialogue鈥檚 two main concerns (defining justice and ascertaining its relationship to happiness) are treated in two corresponding sections (books 2-4 and books 8-9) that are interrupted by what is nominally a series of digressions in books 5-7, and 10. These nominal digressions, of course, create the dialogue鈥檚 most memorable metaphors, but they are meant to be digressions that add to the core. Not the other way around.
At its most basic level, Republic is an effort to forge a consistent and meaningful redefinition of 鈥淛ustice鈥�. The 补谤别迟锚 that is explored lies in nothing outward, but rests solely in the mature reason and regard for what is beneficial to the soul. Not all the details in these allegories stand up to logical analysis, but they are not meant to.
This is made clear by the fact that The Republic鈥檚 interlocutors repeatedly draw attention to the incomplete, provisional, and at times unsatisfactory nature of their treatment of justice, happiness, the ideal political community, the theory of the ideas, the cognitive faculties of human beings, etc. The inadequacy of 鈥渢he method we are employing鈥� is acknowledged at 4.435c-d, at 6.504b-d and in many other places.
The Personal Constitution: A Constitution of the Perfect Life
The Perfect State sketched out (which is the stub of almost all criticism) is only an approximation devised to arrive at the Perfect Man, and that is why the so called bad aspects can be deemed acceptable. The mistake, as stated already, is to see it as a purely political treatise while it is in fact a treatise on justice and how to live the perfect life - the 鈥楥onstitution鈥� of a perfect life.
"He will look at the city which is within him, and take heed that no disorder occur in it, such as might arise either from superfluity or from want; and upon this principle he will regulate his property and gain or spend according to his means."
In the end, the state is not fleshed out enough to really form a complete constitution for any state that can exist in reality (and not just as an idea). But the psychological part (it is curious how this part has generated so much less criticism, in comparison) is - we return in the end (and all the way in between) to the original question of how an individual should order his life - what his virtues should be. It is a political critique piggy-backing on a听 personal enquiry and hence any commentary of it cannot treat them differently. Censorship, slaves, aristocracy are all wonderful aspects in an individual but not palatable in a state (to modern eyes). Hence, we can only criticize that the greater to smaller equality is not well realized (i.e. from state => individual). But then Socrates, as above, is always eager to make the point about the provisional nature of his metaphor which is only meant to incite thinking and not as an answer - that is just not the way to deal with true lovers of truth, with true philosophers.
[Cheeky counterproposal by the reviewer's alter-ego: 鈥�Or all the personal stuff is just a convenient cloak for the political criticism that is the real purpose! After all, we cannot forget the historical milieu in which Plato composed it. He had enough axes to grind!鈥漖
Indeed, the more we approach certain aspects of the text from analytic and conceptual standpoints, the more we find that Socrates and his companions make innumerable assumptions and leaps of logic that is not satisfactory or fully justified. Each of these can be fairly scrutinized and contested, and have been. We may raise any number of questions about its relevance to our experiences and value systems. Much of Republic, especially its political philosophy, argument for Censorship and Social structuring, is at odds with modern ideals; some readers will doubtless be dissatisfied with, among other things, its unapologetic elitism and naive (almost laughable) confidence in the integrity of 鈥減hilosopher-rulers.鈥� Some, however, may find that its critique of ancient Athenian society opens the door to meaningful questions about contemporary cultural practices and priorities. And even more meaningful questions on how to organize our inner impulses and constitution.
Philosopher, Be Thyself
We need to understand that the Platonic Dialogues, in principle, are not meant to represent a simple doctrine that can be followed, they instead are meant to prepare the way for philosophizing. They are not easy guide books to follow. They require work from the reader, above and beyond the ideas presented. That is one of the reasons for the dialogue nature in which they are structured. Plato鈥檚 overarching purpose in writing the Republic was to effect a change in his readers similar to the change that Glaucon and Adeimantus undergo at Socrates鈥� hands in the fictional world of the dialogue. This purpose can be summed up in the word protreptic, from the Greek protrepein, which means 鈥渢urn (someone) forward,鈥� hence 鈥減ropel,鈥� 鈥渦rge on,鈥� 鈥渆xhort.鈥� Plato uses literary art, which in his case includes but is not limited to philosophical argument, to move his reader toward a greater readiness to adopt a just way of life.
The dialogues are thus intended to perform the function of a living teacher who makes his students think. One must philosophize to understand them. One must look at the microcosm of the dialogues as well as the macrocosm of the world that we inhabit simultaneously to understand them. It is in this process that the dialogues assist, insist and themselves provide a training in.
We can only conclude by asking questions, in the true spirit of the dialectic method:
Can we then say that we are convinced, that justice, as defined by Socrates, is something intrinsically valuable? Are we convinced that the just man can be 鈥渉appy鈥� even if he does not enjoy a reputation for justice, nor any other material benefit, in this life or after?
OR
Have Socrates and his companions persuaded us that the ideal city-state they describe in Republic is truly the best political community possible? Do we believe that Socrates himself thinks so? Is that what we take away from such a deep examination of how to live our lives? Or do we let the Story of Er guide us back to the truer motives of the interlocutors?
"I really do not know as yet, but whither the argument may blow, thither we go."
January 28, 2022
鈥淏odily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.鈥�
鈥� Plato, The Republic
A book, that I suppose we all have to read, and in my personal experience should want to read. I read this as a task completing exercise, in that I need to get this read at some stage of other in my life. It also feels like the sort of book that needs to be studied to get the most of, or at least with some personal desire to understand.
Can this really be the foundations of Western philosophy within the pages of a medium sized book? Looking at some of the negative criticisms of this book, I would counter that this read was as much about the art of debate, questioning the status quo and exploring ideas to reach positive goals for me; also it is obviously needs to be taken into the context of the age that it was written in, which in itself makes this a remarkable piece of work, surely? 6 out of 12 for this truly classical read.
2008 read
鈥� Plato, The Republic
A book, that I suppose we all have to read, and in my personal experience should want to read. I read this as a task completing exercise, in that I need to get this read at some stage of other in my life. It also feels like the sort of book that needs to be studied to get the most of, or at least with some personal desire to understand.
Can this really be the foundations of Western philosophy within the pages of a medium sized book? Looking at some of the negative criticisms of this book, I would counter that this read was as much about the art of debate, questioning the status quo and exploring ideas to reach positive goals for me; also it is obviously needs to be taken into the context of the age that it was written in, which in itself makes this a remarkable piece of work, surely? 6 out of 12 for this truly classical read.
2008 read
January 24, 2023
The Republic is where Plato lays down his ideas of an ideal state and its rulers. Plato's Utopian state is one which is just and his ideal rulers are philosophers. Presented as a series of dialogue between Socrates and Plato's brothers Adeimantus and Glaucon, in eleven parts Plato step by step forms his ideal state (Part I and II), its rulers (Part IV and Part VII), their education, women's position (Part VI) and the position of art and poetry (Part X) in the new state. Although some of his views are far fetched and absurd, many of them are thought-provoking. And if you examine carefully, you will see some truth in many of his viewpoints, especially those relating to imperfect societies (discussed in Part IX).
I truly enjoyed Plato's arguments although I cannot say that I agree with them all. There are many insightful views though at the same time, given the long years between the time in which it was written and which it was read, some of the arguments are absurd according to modern standards. Plato's Utopian state is one that cannot be realized in reality; even Plato had his doubts about it ever being in existence. But on close examination of various governments in the world, we see instances where views of Plato have been adopted. Taking all these into account, it is no wonder that The Republic is regarded as the cornerstone of western philosophy.
The translation I read was done by Sir Desmond Lee. I found it easy to read. There were many explanatory notes within that which helped me considerably if not fully to understand the text. Overall, I loved the read and am very happy to say that finally one of my long reading wishes is fulfilled.
I truly enjoyed Plato's arguments although I cannot say that I agree with them all. There are many insightful views though at the same time, given the long years between the time in which it was written and which it was read, some of the arguments are absurd according to modern standards. Plato's Utopian state is one that cannot be realized in reality; even Plato had his doubts about it ever being in existence. But on close examination of various governments in the world, we see instances where views of Plato have been adopted. Taking all these into account, it is no wonder that The Republic is regarded as the cornerstone of western philosophy.
The translation I read was done by Sir Desmond Lee. I found it easy to read. There were many explanatory notes within that which helped me considerably if not fully to understand the text. Overall, I loved the read and am very happy to say that finally one of my long reading wishes is fulfilled.
September 5, 2016
Halfway through now and the ability to see the book as a metaphor for civic and personal moral development becomes difficult. The book is only useful if you are tracking the history of ideas, which I am not. The state Plato describes here is one that is highly prohibitive in almost every aspect. Arts and culture are severely controlled for propaganda purposes. There is a complete inability to view open, transparent government as an option. The guardians must be lied to and deceived constantly if they are to develop correctly. Moreover, to establish what we might call a footing for his premises, there is an overwhelming amount of presumption on the part of the author. Much of the reasoning seems specious. It strikes this reader how Plato did not have a long and detailed historical record to call on as we do. There are many assumptions, for instance, with respect to the education of the guardians, that shows a weak grasp of human psychology. The guardians should, in effect, be shielded from badness and wrongdoing if they are to develop the appropriate appreciation for virtue. Well, if they're not exposed to badness, how will they know it when they see it? Other aspects of guardian nurturing and education, too, are severe if not totalitarian by today's standards. First, the very sick are to be left to die. This was of course a sign of the times. Medicine was primitive. But there is not an iota of compassion about those left to die. This, indeed, would connote "softness," something not wanted in our guardians, who are to be simultaneously brave and happy, not unlike the family dog. Plato actually says that. The overwhelming import of the reading so far has been to show me how very far we as a culture (western) have come in the more than 2,400 years since Republic's composition. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, and I paraphrase, the arc of history is long but it bends toward justice. I stopped on p. 134, unable to finish. To use a line from , "the book fell from my hands."
(AC says I should not be reading this translation at all but G.M.A. Grube's. So I will.)
.
(AC says I should not be reading this translation at all but G.M.A. Grube's. So I will.)
.
June 16, 2023
賵 賲賳 賲賳丕 賱賲 賷爻賲毓 毓賳 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳責 馃寶
丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱兀卮賴乇 賵 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 兀孬乇 毓賱賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱毓氐賵乇 貙 賷賰鬲亘 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丕賱匕賷 賷毓丿賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 兀毓馗賲 賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮丞 亘丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺. 鉁�.
賰丕賳 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲賳 兀爻乇丞 孬乇賷丞 賵 賰丕賳 賱賴 賲賰丕賳 賲丨賮賵馗 賮賷 丨賰賲 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 貙 賵 賱賰賳賴 丌孬乇 兀賳 賷毓丕乇囟 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 賷鬲賲爻賰 亘兀賮賰丕乇賴 禺丕氐丞 亘毓丿賲丕 兀毓丿賲賵丕 賲毓賱賲賴 丕賱卮賴賷乇 爻購賯乇丕胤 丨賷孬 噩毓賱賵賴 賷卮乇亘 丕賱爻賲 兀賲丕賲 鬲賱丕賲賷匕賴.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丿賵乇 毓賱賷 賴賷卅丞 丨賵丕乇 胤賵賷賱 賷噩乇賶 毓賱賷 賱爻丕賳 賲毓賱賲賴 爻賯乇丕胤 貙 丕賱匕賷 賯乇乇 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱噩賱賵爻 賵 丕賱丕爻鬲賲丕毓 賱丨賰賲丞 賰亘丕乇 丕賱爻賳 貙 賱賷噩乇賶 丕賱兀賲乇 兀賳 爻賯乇丕胤 賴賵 賲賳 賷丿賷乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵 賷毓賱賲 賰亘丕乇 丕賱爻賳 賰賱 卮賷卅 鬲賯乇賷亘丕 馃槀
賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賳 賰賷賮賷丞 亘賳丕亍 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵 賴賱 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 兀賮囟賱 兀賲 丕賱馗賱賲責
賱鬲鬲賮丕噩卅 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 兀賳 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 兀賮囟賱 丨賯丕賸 馃槷馃槀!
爻兀丿毓賰 丕賱丌賳 賲毓 禺賱丕氐丞 賮賰乇 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 賲毓 賴匕賴 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀毓丿賴丕 賲亘賴乇丞 爻丕亘賯丞 賱毓氐乇賴 鬲賳賲 毓賳 毓亘賯乇賷丞 丕賱乇噩賱 鉁�
- 賵 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賱匕賷賳 賷爻鬲賴噩賳賵賳 丕賱馗賱賲 貙 賱丕 賷禺卮賵賳 丕乇鬲賰丕亘賴 貙 賵 廿賳賲丕 賷禺卮賵賳 丕賱鬲毓乇囟 賱賴.
賮丕賱馗賱賲 廿匕丕 鬲丨賯賯 亘賲賯賷丕爻 賲毓賷賳 賰丕賳 兀賰孬乇 爻禺丕亍 賲賳 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞.
- 丕賱馗賱賲 賷賵賱丿 丕賱毓丿丕賵丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻 貙 賵 賵噩賵丿賴 賷丿毓賵 廿賱賷 賰乇丕賴賷丞 丕賱賳丕爻 亘毓囟賴賲 亘毓囟丕賸 貙 賮賷丐賱賮賵賳 兀丨夭丕亘丕賸 賵 賷毓噩夭賵賳 毓賳 丕賱鬲氐乇賮 賰噩賲丕毓丞 貙 賵 廿匕丕 丨賱 丕賱馗賱賲 亘賷賳 卮禺氐賷賳 賷氐亘丨 賰賱 賲賳賴賲丕 毓丿賵丕 賱賱丌禺乇 貙 賵 賰賱丕賴賲丕 毓丿賵 賱賱乇噩賱 丕賱毓丕丿賱.
- 賮賰賲丕賱 丕賱馗賱賲 兀賳 賷亘丿賵 毓丕丿賱丕賸 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賰匕賱賰 丨賯丕賸 .
- 賵 賱丕 賷鬲乇丿丿賵賳 賮賷 兀賳 賷氐賮賵丕 丕賱兀卮乇丕乇 亘兀賳賴賲 爻毓丿丕亍 貙 賵 賷賰乇賲賵賳賴賲 亘兀丨爻賳 丕賱氐賮丕鬲 廿匕丕 賰丕賳賵丕 兀睾賳賷丕亍 貙 賵 亘丕賱毓賰爻 賷丨鬲賯乇賵賳 丕賱賮賯乇丕亍 賵 丕賱囟毓賮丕亍 賮賷 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賳賵丕丨賷 貙 乇睾賲 丕毓鬲乇丕賮賴賲 亘兀賳賴賲 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱爻丕亘賯賷賳.
- 丕賱乇兀賷 丕賱毓丕賲 賷氐乇丨 亘兀賳賴 賱丕 賮丕卅丿丞 賲賳 賰賵賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓丕丿賱丕賸 賲丕賱賲 賷毓乇賮 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賳賴 匕賱賰 貙 亘賱 廿賳賴 爻賷丐丿賷 廿賱賷 丕賱鬲毓亘 賵 丕賱禺爻丕乇丞.
- 賵 丕賱噩爻賲 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賱丕 賷噩毓賱 丕賱賳賮爻 禺賷乇丞 貙 亘賱 亘丕賱毓賰爻 貙 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱胤賷亘丞 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱噩爻賲 賰丕賲賱丕賸.
- 賵 賳丨賳 賳乇賶 賮賷 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 丕賱氐睾丕乇 丕賱睾囟亘 賲賳匕 賵賱丕丿鬲賴賲 貙 賮賲毓馗賲 丕賱賳丕爻 賱丕 賷丨氐賱賵賳 毓賱賷 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱乇氐賷賳 廿賱丕 亘毓丿 爻賳賷賳 胤賵賷賱丞 貙 賵 賯丿 賱丕 賷丨氐賱 毓賱賷賴 亘毓囟賴賲 兀亘丿丕.
- 賵 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賳丿賲丕 賷賲乇囟賵賳 賱丕 賷乇賵賳 卮賷卅丕賸 兀賱匕 賲賳 丕賱氐丨丞 貙 賵 賯丿 賰丕賳賵丕 賱丕 賷噩丿賵賳 賱賴丕 賴匕賴 丕賱賱匕丞 丕賱賯氐賵賶 賯亘賱 兀賳 賷賲乇囟賵丕.
- 賲賳 丕賱賵丕囟丨 兀賳 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿賷 賷兀鬲賷 賳鬲賷噩丞 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 貙 賵 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賷賴丿賲賴丕 鬲毓胤卮賴丕 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷乇鬲賵賷 廿賱賷 丕賱卮賷卅 丕賱匕賷 丕毓鬲亘乇鬲賴 丕賱禺賷乇 丕賱丕爻賲賷 賵 賴賵 丕賱丨乇賷丞.
丕賱賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱兀卮賴乇 賵 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 兀孬乇 毓賱賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 毓賱賷 賲乇 丕賱毓氐賵乇 貙 賷賰鬲亘 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丕賱匕賷 賷毓丿賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 兀毓馗賲 賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮丞 亘丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺. 鉁�.
賰丕賳 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲賳 兀爻乇丞 孬乇賷丞 賵 賰丕賳 賱賴 賲賰丕賳 賲丨賮賵馗 賮賷 丨賰賲 丕賱賷賵賳丕賳 貙 賵 賱賰賳賴 丌孬乇 兀賳 賷毓丕乇囟 丕賱爻賱胤丞 賵 賷鬲賲爻賰 亘兀賮賰丕乇賴 禺丕氐丞 亘毓丿賲丕 兀毓丿賲賵丕 賲毓賱賲賴 丕賱卮賴賷乇 爻購賯乇丕胤 丨賷孬 噩毓賱賵賴 賷卮乇亘 丕賱爻賲 兀賲丕賲 鬲賱丕賲賷匕賴.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丿賵乇 毓賱賷 賴賷卅丞 丨賵丕乇 胤賵賷賱 賷噩乇賶 毓賱賷 賱爻丕賳 賲毓賱賲賴 爻賯乇丕胤 貙 丕賱匕賷 賯乇乇 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱噩賱賵爻 賵 丕賱丕爻鬲賲丕毓 賱丨賰賲丞 賰亘丕乇 丕賱爻賳 貙 賱賷噩乇賶 丕賱兀賲乇 兀賳 爻賯乇丕胤 賴賵 賲賳 賷丿賷乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賵 賷毓賱賲 賰亘丕乇 丕賱爻賳 賰賱 卮賷卅 鬲賯乇賷亘丕 馃槀
賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賳 賰賷賮賷丞 亘賳丕亍 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵 賴賱 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 兀賮囟賱 兀賲 丕賱馗賱賲責
賱鬲鬲賮丕噩卅 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 兀賳 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 兀賮囟賱 丨賯丕賸 馃槷馃槀!
爻兀丿毓賰 丕賱丌賳 賲毓 禺賱丕氐丞 賮賰乇 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 賲毓 賴匕賴 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀毓丿賴丕 賲亘賴乇丞 爻丕亘賯丞 賱毓氐乇賴 鬲賳賲 毓賳 毓亘賯乇賷丞 丕賱乇噩賱 鉁�
- 賵 丕賱賳丕爻 丕賱匕賷賳 賷爻鬲賴噩賳賵賳 丕賱馗賱賲 貙 賱丕 賷禺卮賵賳 丕乇鬲賰丕亘賴 貙 賵 廿賳賲丕 賷禺卮賵賳 丕賱鬲毓乇囟 賱賴.
賮丕賱馗賱賲 廿匕丕 鬲丨賯賯 亘賲賯賷丕爻 賲毓賷賳 賰丕賳 兀賰孬乇 爻禺丕亍 賲賳 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞.
- 丕賱馗賱賲 賷賵賱丿 丕賱毓丿丕賵丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻 貙 賵 賵噩賵丿賴 賷丿毓賵 廿賱賷 賰乇丕賴賷丞 丕賱賳丕爻 亘毓囟賴賲 亘毓囟丕賸 貙 賮賷丐賱賮賵賳 兀丨夭丕亘丕賸 賵 賷毓噩夭賵賳 毓賳 丕賱鬲氐乇賮 賰噩賲丕毓丞 貙 賵 廿匕丕 丨賱 丕賱馗賱賲 亘賷賳 卮禺氐賷賳 賷氐亘丨 賰賱 賲賳賴賲丕 毓丿賵丕 賱賱丌禺乇 貙 賵 賰賱丕賴賲丕 毓丿賵 賱賱乇噩賱 丕賱毓丕丿賱.
- 賮賰賲丕賱 丕賱馗賱賲 兀賳 賷亘丿賵 毓丕丿賱丕賸 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賰匕賱賰 丨賯丕賸 .
- 賵 賱丕 賷鬲乇丿丿賵賳 賮賷 兀賳 賷氐賮賵丕 丕賱兀卮乇丕乇 亘兀賳賴賲 爻毓丿丕亍 貙 賵 賷賰乇賲賵賳賴賲 亘兀丨爻賳 丕賱氐賮丕鬲 廿匕丕 賰丕賳賵丕 兀睾賳賷丕亍 貙 賵 亘丕賱毓賰爻 賷丨鬲賯乇賵賳 丕賱賮賯乇丕亍 賵 丕賱囟毓賮丕亍 賮賷 噩賲賷毓 丕賱賳賵丕丨賷 貙 乇睾賲 丕毓鬲乇丕賮賴賲 亘兀賳賴賲 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 丕賱爻丕亘賯賷賳.
- 丕賱乇兀賷 丕賱毓丕賲 賷氐乇丨 亘兀賳賴 賱丕 賮丕卅丿丞 賲賳 賰賵賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓丕丿賱丕賸 賲丕賱賲 賷毓乇賮 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賳賴 匕賱賰 貙 亘賱 廿賳賴 爻賷丐丿賷 廿賱賷 丕賱鬲毓亘 賵 丕賱禺爻丕乇丞.
- 賵 丕賱噩爻賲 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賱丕 賷噩毓賱 丕賱賳賮爻 禺賷乇丞 貙 亘賱 亘丕賱毓賰爻 貙 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱胤賷亘丞 鬲噩毓賱 丕賱噩爻賲 賰丕賲賱丕賸.
- 賵 賳丨賳 賳乇賶 賮賷 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 丕賱氐睾丕乇 丕賱睾囟亘 賲賳匕 賵賱丕丿鬲賴賲 貙 賮賲毓馗賲 丕賱賳丕爻 賱丕 賷丨氐賱賵賳 毓賱賷 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱乇氐賷賳 廿賱丕 亘毓丿 爻賳賷賳 胤賵賷賱丞 貙 賵 賯丿 賱丕 賷丨氐賱 毓賱賷賴 亘毓囟賴賲 兀亘丿丕.
- 賵 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賳丿賲丕 賷賲乇囟賵賳 賱丕 賷乇賵賳 卮賷卅丕賸 兀賱匕 賲賳 丕賱氐丨丞 貙 賵 賯丿 賰丕賳賵丕 賱丕 賷噩丿賵賳 賱賴丕 賴匕賴 丕賱賱匕丞 丕賱賯氐賵賶 賯亘賱 兀賳 賷賲乇囟賵丕.
- 賲賳 丕賱賵丕囟丨 兀賳 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿賷 賷兀鬲賷 賳鬲賷噩丞 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 貙 賵 丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賷賴丿賲賴丕 鬲毓胤卮賴丕 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷乇鬲賵賷 廿賱賷 丕賱卮賷卅 丕賱匕賷 丕毓鬲亘乇鬲賴 丕賱禺賷乇 丕賱丕爻賲賷 賵 賴賵 丕賱丨乇賷丞.
May 27, 2019
I鈥檝e read this right through a couple of times now 鈥� three, or there about, I think. And bits of it many, many times. This is one of the key books of 鈥榯he western canon鈥�, you really do need to be aware of it. And you might be surprised at how frequently it is referenced, particularly in science fiction 鈥� everything from The Giver to Brave New World to The Matrix. And while the world Plato is presenting is meant to be a utopia, it is generally used as the basis for the most terrifying of dystopias.
One of the things I noticed this time through was all the eugenics. Not just in the selective breeding of the human stock, but also in the murder of the 鈥榰nfit鈥�. I鈥檝e always been very sensitive to ideas of killing people based on some notion of the 鈥榗osts to society鈥� that they bring. I believe such ideas undermine our very humanity to the point where the 鈥榠mproved鈥� society would no longer be fit to be called human.
This book is seeking to provide an answer to the question 鈥榳hat is justice?鈥� 鈥� or rather, it starts by questioning if it is just to help your friends and harm your enemies? I鈥檓 not sure it is immediately obvious that we might go from these questions to answers concerning the division of labour in a society 鈥� but that seems to be a major consideration of the theory of justice being presented here. Basically, people are born with various levels of merit and a just society would identify those who are favoured with whatever merit they have, and it would set them to the tasks that best suit whatever merit they have. Plato talks of the merit of people as a bit like being assigned to different metals (not unlike in the Olympics) and those people metals differentiate them into different classifications 鈥� gold, silver, bronze and iron 鈥� and each will have their proper tasks in society. Once you have been assigned to one of these classifications you are pretty much stuck there. There are tasks that are appropriate to your abilities and the just society is one where people are assigned tasks that best meet their abilities. For this reason, it is important that parents don鈥檛 know their own children and that children are brought up in common by the whole of society. That way you won鈥檛 end up with a bronze child from two gold parents being given a gold education that they will not be able to make any use of, or their bronze child wreaking havoc trying to be a philosopher king, when they would have been a better baker or blacksmith or something.
All the same, the best people are still likely to have the best children and so the society should make all proper efforts to ensure that the best breeds with the best 鈥� in much the same way as you would if you were breeding race horses.
The best societies would be ruled by philosopher kings 鈥� and they would not be allowed to have any possessions of their own, since they ought to be focused on the good of the society as a whole. There is a kind of threat to such people 鈥� Plato believes they would be unlikely to really give a stuff about most things that others find very rewarding. For instance, wealth, power, prestige and so on. They are likely to be seen as too 鈥榦ther worldly鈥�, even by themselves, and therefore they are likely to be uninterested in taking on the responsibility of ruling and they might need to be encouraged. This is all for the good 鈥� because the sorts of people who want to rule are generally not the sort of people who should ever be allowed to rule. This is one of the things in which me and Plato are very much on the same page 鈥� although, for me, rather than breeding a special class of philosopher kings to rule over us, I am increasingly becoming an anarchist as I struggle to think of a single person in my life who has been a worthwhile leader. I鈥檝e certainly never met a philosopher I would be happy to have as my king.
These philosopher kings are expected to structure pretty well all aspects of life to make sure that the dumb (or rather we differently-abled with all too much base metal in our veins) are kept content in our ignorance. There are many, many things that the mass of society really shouldn鈥檛 be troubling their all too small minds over. It is also important that the philosopher kings do what they can to make sure that the rest of society doesn鈥檛 get their passions too excited by things like poetry either. A large part of religion will need to go 鈥� particularly the bits where the gods were seen fighting with each other or doing immoral things to women dressed up as bulls and such.
The allegory of the cave is the most famous part of this dialogue. It concerns the nature of education. What always strikes me about it is the pain that is associated with learning the truth and how once one has learnt the truth one appears to be foolish to all those around them. But that the point of learning is to return to those who are ignorant and to be forced to attempt to explain the truth of existence to them. This is almost always a near fatal enterprise. People generally don鈥檛 like being told they are wrong and being told 鈥榚verything you have ever thought was true is actually false鈥� is hardly the first line in a new romance.
I keep going on about Marx鈥檚 utopia being based on the idea of there being no division of labour 鈥� so it is interesting that Plato鈥檚 is based on the exact opposite idea to this. In fact, Plato says that people really only have one thing that they are likely to be good at and that they must stick to that. He may have been both the first eugenicist, and the first Fordist/Taylorist too.
His discussion of the different types of government in book viii is a bit of a highlight to this, I think. I found his discussion of democracy particularly interesting. I鈥檓 not sure I agree with it, but I thought his discussion of how it tended towards tyranny was all a bit chilling, and perhaps also a bit too close to home. The power of money to buy democracy, the fact tyrants need to remove the best of those around them and so becomes increasingly stupid, and focused on giving the people 鈥榳hat they want鈥� 鈥� mostly bread and circuses 鈥� looks all uncomfortably like Trump鈥檚 America writ large.
One of the things I noticed this time through was all the eugenics. Not just in the selective breeding of the human stock, but also in the murder of the 鈥榰nfit鈥�. I鈥檝e always been very sensitive to ideas of killing people based on some notion of the 鈥榗osts to society鈥� that they bring. I believe such ideas undermine our very humanity to the point where the 鈥榠mproved鈥� society would no longer be fit to be called human.
This book is seeking to provide an answer to the question 鈥榳hat is justice?鈥� 鈥� or rather, it starts by questioning if it is just to help your friends and harm your enemies? I鈥檓 not sure it is immediately obvious that we might go from these questions to answers concerning the division of labour in a society 鈥� but that seems to be a major consideration of the theory of justice being presented here. Basically, people are born with various levels of merit and a just society would identify those who are favoured with whatever merit they have, and it would set them to the tasks that best suit whatever merit they have. Plato talks of the merit of people as a bit like being assigned to different metals (not unlike in the Olympics) and those people metals differentiate them into different classifications 鈥� gold, silver, bronze and iron 鈥� and each will have their proper tasks in society. Once you have been assigned to one of these classifications you are pretty much stuck there. There are tasks that are appropriate to your abilities and the just society is one where people are assigned tasks that best meet their abilities. For this reason, it is important that parents don鈥檛 know their own children and that children are brought up in common by the whole of society. That way you won鈥檛 end up with a bronze child from two gold parents being given a gold education that they will not be able to make any use of, or their bronze child wreaking havoc trying to be a philosopher king, when they would have been a better baker or blacksmith or something.
All the same, the best people are still likely to have the best children and so the society should make all proper efforts to ensure that the best breeds with the best 鈥� in much the same way as you would if you were breeding race horses.
The best societies would be ruled by philosopher kings 鈥� and they would not be allowed to have any possessions of their own, since they ought to be focused on the good of the society as a whole. There is a kind of threat to such people 鈥� Plato believes they would be unlikely to really give a stuff about most things that others find very rewarding. For instance, wealth, power, prestige and so on. They are likely to be seen as too 鈥榦ther worldly鈥�, even by themselves, and therefore they are likely to be uninterested in taking on the responsibility of ruling and they might need to be encouraged. This is all for the good 鈥� because the sorts of people who want to rule are generally not the sort of people who should ever be allowed to rule. This is one of the things in which me and Plato are very much on the same page 鈥� although, for me, rather than breeding a special class of philosopher kings to rule over us, I am increasingly becoming an anarchist as I struggle to think of a single person in my life who has been a worthwhile leader. I鈥檝e certainly never met a philosopher I would be happy to have as my king.
These philosopher kings are expected to structure pretty well all aspects of life to make sure that the dumb (or rather we differently-abled with all too much base metal in our veins) are kept content in our ignorance. There are many, many things that the mass of society really shouldn鈥檛 be troubling their all too small minds over. It is also important that the philosopher kings do what they can to make sure that the rest of society doesn鈥檛 get their passions too excited by things like poetry either. A large part of religion will need to go 鈥� particularly the bits where the gods were seen fighting with each other or doing immoral things to women dressed up as bulls and such.
The allegory of the cave is the most famous part of this dialogue. It concerns the nature of education. What always strikes me about it is the pain that is associated with learning the truth and how once one has learnt the truth one appears to be foolish to all those around them. But that the point of learning is to return to those who are ignorant and to be forced to attempt to explain the truth of existence to them. This is almost always a near fatal enterprise. People generally don鈥檛 like being told they are wrong and being told 鈥榚verything you have ever thought was true is actually false鈥� is hardly the first line in a new romance.
I keep going on about Marx鈥檚 utopia being based on the idea of there being no division of labour 鈥� so it is interesting that Plato鈥檚 is based on the exact opposite idea to this. In fact, Plato says that people really only have one thing that they are likely to be good at and that they must stick to that. He may have been both the first eugenicist, and the first Fordist/Taylorist too.
His discussion of the different types of government in book viii is a bit of a highlight to this, I think. I found his discussion of democracy particularly interesting. I鈥檓 not sure I agree with it, but I thought his discussion of how it tended towards tyranny was all a bit chilling, and perhaps also a bit too close to home. The power of money to buy democracy, the fact tyrants need to remove the best of those around them and so becomes increasingly stupid, and focused on giving the people 鈥榳hat they want鈥� 鈥� mostly bread and circuses 鈥� looks all uncomfortably like Trump鈥檚 America writ large.
June 27, 2021
Bolesnici kad su bolesni ka啪u da nema ni拧ta prijatnijeg od zdravlja, ali prije nego 拧to su se razbolili oni nisu znali da je zdravlje najprijatnije.
Uvijek me lijepo osje膰anje spopadne pri 膷itanju Platona. Njegova misao je jasna i budna, o拧tra i jednostavna. Iako ,,Dr啪ava" napisana oko 380. prije n.e. njena relevantnost i vi膽enje ne smije da se dovede danas u pitanje. Koliko samo ova knjiga odjekuje i danas, i odjekiva膰e. Na trenutke se mo啪e izvu膰i kontekst i re膰i da se Platon obra膰a pojedincu, a ne grupama, ne dr啪avi. Takva jedna dr啪ava mo啪e postati idealna, tek kad pojedinac sebe u膷ini idealnim; sada samo zavisi po 膷ijoj mjeri. Ali ako te stvari koje on pripisuje kao va啪nim za pojedinca - uzmemo kao univerzalne, onda mo啪emo re膰i da se dr啪ava kroji onako kako sebe pojedinac kroji. Bez ikakvog ogoljenog politikanstva ikomje拧anja raznih podlih nameta, Platon problemu dr啪ave pristupa temeljno, obra膽uje strukturu 膷ovjeka te njegovu kulturolo拧ku pozadinu stavlja u blokove svoje dr啪ave.
Naime Platon 膷esto isti膷e fizi膷ko i muzi膷ko vaspitanje. Poja膷avanjem ovog drugog ubla啪ava se ovo prvo, fizi膷ko vaspitanje, i tako individua posti啪e balans izme膽u onoga 拧to se zove snaga, smjelost, i onoga 拧to zovemo prijatelja razuma. I jedno i drugo je jako va啪no. Zapravo mnogi pojedinci 啪ele da promjene svijet ili dr啪avu u kojoj 啪ive, a sebe ne 啪ele da promjene i tako se pojavljuje velika neskladnost izme膽u onoga 拧to treba da bude i onoga 拧to jeste. Fizi膷ko i muzi膷ko vaspitanje treba da budu predigra za pravednost. Gotovo pet knjiga je unutar dr啪ave posvje膰eno pravednosti. Platon pravednost gleda u hrabrosti, mudrosti i umjerenosti, 拧to je koherentno s njegovim opisivanjen fizi膷kog i muzi膷kog vaspitanja; ili u najboljem re膷eno dr啪ava i ljudski 啪ivoti su neraskidivi. Zapravo, 膷itavu knjigu treba uzetu kao cjelokupnu koherentnost, kod Platona se sve ve啪e jedno s drugim. Potom Platon pravi modele i nijedan model dr啪avnog ure膽enja, po mom mi拧ljenju nije sre膰no pro拧ao, jer svi vode kao onom najgorem, bilo da se radi o timokratiji, oligarhiji, demokratiji ili tiraniji.
Mit o pe膰ini zauzima zaista jedno posebno mjesto u knjizi, kao i okretanje vretena oko koljena Ananke, koje izna膷ava kosmolo拧ko vi膽ene onoga 拧to je bilo, 拧to jeste i 拧to 膰e biti.
Sve u svemu, ne postoji idealna dr啪ava niti 膰e se takva pojaviti. I ova knjiga ne treba da slu啪i kao neki teoretski vodi膷 za njeno tobo啪nje postizanje. Svaki njen 膷italac bi trebao da iz nje izvu膷e ono najva啪nije, npr. fizi膷ko i muzi膷ko vaspitanje i otpo膷ne dijelovanje istog. Knjiga samo tako mo啪e da ima korist, a i po samog pojedinca 膰e to biti korisno. U suprotnom, ova knjiga 膰e tek poslu啪iti umno啪avanju nekih istorijskih ideja, koje 膰e jedni nazvati ,,prevazi膽enim" a drugi ,,ni拧tavnim."
November 5, 2024
鈥淩epublic,鈥� it must be stipulated at the outset, is a Latin term (res publica, 鈥減ublic matter鈥�), and therefore is really not the right way to translate the name of this quintessentially Greek dialogue by Plato. Its original Greek title, 辫辞濒颈迟别铆补 or 蟺慰位喂蟿蔚委伪, typically means 鈥渃onstitution,鈥� and might best be translated in this context as 鈥渢he ideal state鈥� 鈥� a term that Plato uses quite frequently throughout the dialogue. Yet by any name, Plato鈥檚 Republic remains one of the most important books ever written; and if you care about topics like the way in which the government of your country serves 鈥� or does not serve 鈥� its people, then you should make a point of reading The Republic.
The Republic stands out among Plato鈥檚 dialogues in a number of ways. For one thing, it is among the longest of the dialogues (368 pages in this Penguin Books edition, not counting appendices and notes). For another, it has quite the cast of characters. The setting is the home of Polemarchus, a prominent resident of the Athenian port of Piraeus, and the eleven participants in the dialogue include not only Socrates and Polemarchus but also Polemarchus鈥� father Cephalus and brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus. Also along for the philosophical ride is the sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, who here plays the role 鈥� one that will be familiar to readers of Plato鈥檚 dialogues 鈥� of sophist foil whose easy and facile assumptions are undone by Socrates鈥� more open-minded and ethically focused inquiries.
The subject of their discussion is the 辫辞濒颈迟别铆补, the ideal state, and the shape that it would take; and from the beginning it seems clear that Plato is not trying to set forth a realistic blueprint for an actual, temporal society. In his discussion of the education that a small group of elite Guardians are to receive, in order that they may be wise and fearless defenders of the commonwealth, Plato鈥檚 Socrates declares that epic poems like Homer鈥檚 Iliad should be shorn of their grotesque and horrifying passages, as 鈥渢he better they are as poetry the more unsuitable they are for the ears of children or men who are to be free and fear slavery more than death鈥�.[T]he thrill of terror they cause will make our Guardians more nervous and less tough than they should be鈥� (p. 78).
Does Plato really want to censor the Iliad? Almost certainly not; Homer鈥檚 poems were foundational texts for the classical Greek world, like the Bible for the medieval and early modern West. Rather, Plato鈥檚 purpose in this dialogue seems to be placing before the reader the contradictions that would be involved in moving from the imperfect states of the temporal realm to a theoretical 鈥渋deal鈥� state.
At the same time, Plato鈥檚 theoretical state seems downright modern in many ways. Consider, for example, the way in which Plato鈥檚 Socrates declares that 鈥淲e shall have to train the women also鈥� in hitherto male-dominated skills like hunting and keeping watch, 鈥渁nd train them for war as well, and treat them in the same way as the men鈥� (p. 161). Later in the same passage, Socrates states that as 鈥渋t is natural for women to take part in all occupations as well as men鈥�, accordingly 鈥渢here will also be some women fitted to be Guardians鈥� (pp. 165-66). A fairly radical declaration for the year 380 B.C. 鈥� 2300 years before the government of the United States of America recognized women鈥檚 right to vote 鈥� and one that puts Plato light-years ahead of his one-time pupil Aristotle when it comes to gender equity.
Central to The Republic is Plato鈥檚 Allegory of the Cave. We hear so much about this allegory, in so many contexts, that any first-time reader of The Republic is bound to look forward to encountering the allegory in its original context for the first time. Yet the first-time reader of The Republic may not be ready for the violence of the metaphor, or for its focus on injustice and confinement:
鈥淚magine an underground chamber like a cave, with a long entrance open to the daylight and as wide as the cave. In this chamber are men who have been prisoners there since they were children, their legs and necks being so fastened that they can only look straight ahead of them and cannot turn their heads. Some way off, behind and higher up, a fire is burning, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them runs a road, in front of which a curtain-wall has been built, like the screen at puppet shows between the operators and their audience, above which they show their puppets" (p. 241).
As translator and commentator Desmond Lee of Cambridge University points out, a modern-day analogue for Plato's cave exists in television, as Plato seems to feel that the average person's "moral and intellectual opinions often bear as little relationship to the truth as the average film or television programme does to real life" (p. 240). Such considerations carry particular weight in a time when a recent U.S. president came to power in large part because large numbers of American voters connected with a mediatic public image conveyed via something called 鈥渞eality television鈥� (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one).
The 鈥渋deal state鈥� in The Republic, as with other topics like rhetoric or law-making in other dialogues, is of interest here because the shape that a political state takes has everything to with the one topic that is always Plato鈥檚 core interest: 鈥渢he most important of issues鈥he choice between a good and an evil life鈥� (p. 317).
Accordingly, I read The Republic the same way I listen to John Lennon鈥檚 song 鈥淚magine鈥� (1971). When Lennon asked his listeners to 鈥淚magine there鈥檚 no countries,鈥� or to 鈥淚magine no possessions鈥othing to kill or die for,鈥� I don鈥檛 think he was expecting the citizens of his native Great Britain, or of his adopted U.S.A., to adopt such a program as a matter of practical constitutional policy. Rather, he no doubt hoped that his listeners would question an unthinking attachment to 鈥渢raditional鈥� values like nationalism, materialism, and militarism.
Similarly, I believe, Plato wanted his readers, whether they were Athenian or Spartan or whatever, to question the underlying assumptions of their own societies, and to work for change where they saw fit 鈥� keeping always in mind the goal of building a state that would encourage people to be virtuous. It is, heaven knows, a goal still worth pursuing today.
Desmond Lee鈥檚 classic translation, with further refinements by Rachana Kamtekar of the University of Michigan, is a great way to get to know a dialogue that is described on the dust jacket 鈥� accurately, I believe 鈥� as 鈥渢he cornerstone of Western philosophy.鈥�
The Republic stands out among Plato鈥檚 dialogues in a number of ways. For one thing, it is among the longest of the dialogues (368 pages in this Penguin Books edition, not counting appendices and notes). For another, it has quite the cast of characters. The setting is the home of Polemarchus, a prominent resident of the Athenian port of Piraeus, and the eleven participants in the dialogue include not only Socrates and Polemarchus but also Polemarchus鈥� father Cephalus and brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus. Also along for the philosophical ride is the sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, who here plays the role 鈥� one that will be familiar to readers of Plato鈥檚 dialogues 鈥� of sophist foil whose easy and facile assumptions are undone by Socrates鈥� more open-minded and ethically focused inquiries.
The subject of their discussion is the 辫辞濒颈迟别铆补, the ideal state, and the shape that it would take; and from the beginning it seems clear that Plato is not trying to set forth a realistic blueprint for an actual, temporal society. In his discussion of the education that a small group of elite Guardians are to receive, in order that they may be wise and fearless defenders of the commonwealth, Plato鈥檚 Socrates declares that epic poems like Homer鈥檚 Iliad should be shorn of their grotesque and horrifying passages, as 鈥渢he better they are as poetry the more unsuitable they are for the ears of children or men who are to be free and fear slavery more than death鈥�.[T]he thrill of terror they cause will make our Guardians more nervous and less tough than they should be鈥� (p. 78).
Does Plato really want to censor the Iliad? Almost certainly not; Homer鈥檚 poems were foundational texts for the classical Greek world, like the Bible for the medieval and early modern West. Rather, Plato鈥檚 purpose in this dialogue seems to be placing before the reader the contradictions that would be involved in moving from the imperfect states of the temporal realm to a theoretical 鈥渋deal鈥� state.
At the same time, Plato鈥檚 theoretical state seems downright modern in many ways. Consider, for example, the way in which Plato鈥檚 Socrates declares that 鈥淲e shall have to train the women also鈥� in hitherto male-dominated skills like hunting and keeping watch, 鈥渁nd train them for war as well, and treat them in the same way as the men鈥� (p. 161). Later in the same passage, Socrates states that as 鈥渋t is natural for women to take part in all occupations as well as men鈥�, accordingly 鈥渢here will also be some women fitted to be Guardians鈥� (pp. 165-66). A fairly radical declaration for the year 380 B.C. 鈥� 2300 years before the government of the United States of America recognized women鈥檚 right to vote 鈥� and one that puts Plato light-years ahead of his one-time pupil Aristotle when it comes to gender equity.
Central to The Republic is Plato鈥檚 Allegory of the Cave. We hear so much about this allegory, in so many contexts, that any first-time reader of The Republic is bound to look forward to encountering the allegory in its original context for the first time. Yet the first-time reader of The Republic may not be ready for the violence of the metaphor, or for its focus on injustice and confinement:
鈥淚magine an underground chamber like a cave, with a long entrance open to the daylight and as wide as the cave. In this chamber are men who have been prisoners there since they were children, their legs and necks being so fastened that they can only look straight ahead of them and cannot turn their heads. Some way off, behind and higher up, a fire is burning, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them runs a road, in front of which a curtain-wall has been built, like the screen at puppet shows between the operators and their audience, above which they show their puppets" (p. 241).
As translator and commentator Desmond Lee of Cambridge University points out, a modern-day analogue for Plato's cave exists in television, as Plato seems to feel that the average person's "moral and intellectual opinions often bear as little relationship to the truth as the average film or television programme does to real life" (p. 240). Such considerations carry particular weight in a time when a recent U.S. president came to power in large part because large numbers of American voters connected with a mediatic public image conveyed via something called 鈥渞eality television鈥� (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one).
The 鈥渋deal state鈥� in The Republic, as with other topics like rhetoric or law-making in other dialogues, is of interest here because the shape that a political state takes has everything to with the one topic that is always Plato鈥檚 core interest: 鈥渢he most important of issues鈥he choice between a good and an evil life鈥� (p. 317).
Accordingly, I read The Republic the same way I listen to John Lennon鈥檚 song 鈥淚magine鈥� (1971). When Lennon asked his listeners to 鈥淚magine there鈥檚 no countries,鈥� or to 鈥淚magine no possessions鈥othing to kill or die for,鈥� I don鈥檛 think he was expecting the citizens of his native Great Britain, or of his adopted U.S.A., to adopt such a program as a matter of practical constitutional policy. Rather, he no doubt hoped that his listeners would question an unthinking attachment to 鈥渢raditional鈥� values like nationalism, materialism, and militarism.
Similarly, I believe, Plato wanted his readers, whether they were Athenian or Spartan or whatever, to question the underlying assumptions of their own societies, and to work for change where they saw fit 鈥� keeping always in mind the goal of building a state that would encourage people to be virtuous. It is, heaven knows, a goal still worth pursuing today.
Desmond Lee鈥檚 classic translation, with further refinements by Rachana Kamtekar of the University of Michigan, is a great way to get to know a dialogue that is described on the dust jacket 鈥� accurately, I believe 鈥� as 鈥渢he cornerstone of Western philosophy.鈥�
December 17, 2019
爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖 賴丕
丿乇 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳貙 诏乇賵賴蹖 賲毓賱賲 丿賵乇賴 诏乇丿 亘賵丿賳 讴賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 賵讴丕賱鬲 亘賴 噩賵丕賳 賴丕 蹖丕丿 賲蹖丿丕丿賳貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賴丕 "爻賵賮蹖爻鬲" 蹖丕 "爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖" 蹖毓賳蹖 "丨讴蹖賲" 賲蹖 诏賮鬲賳. 賲毓乇賵賮賴 讴賴 丕蹖賳 诏乇賵賴 丿賵 禺氐賵氐蹖鬲 賲賴賲 丿丕卮鬲賳: 丕賵賱貙 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲 丿乇 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭. 丿賵賲: 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賲睾丕賱胤賴 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 賳鬲蹖噩賴.
丕賮賱丕胤賵賳
賲毓乇賵賮賴 讴賴 爻賯乇丕胤 賵 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 毓賱蹖賴 丕蹖賳 丿賵 禺氐賵氐蹖鬲 爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖 賴丕 賲賵囟毓 诏乇賮鬲賳 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 蹖 賲賯丕亘賱賴 亘丕 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 蹖 賲賯丕亘賱賴 亘丕 賲睾丕賱胤賴貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲賳胤賯 亘賵丿.
丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕蹖賳 胤賵乇蹖 鬲賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賲毓乇賮蹖 卮丿賴. 賲卮讴賱 丕蹖賳噩丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 禺賵丿卮 丕亘丿丕 丕蹖賳 胤賵乇 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 鬲賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕卮貙 卮丿蹖丿丕賸 卮讴賾丕讴賴. 鬲賵蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丨孬 賴丕卮貙 賮賯胤 丕蹖噩丕丿 爻丐丕賱 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 噩賵丕亘 賴丕蹖 賲賲讴賳 乇賵 胤乇丨 賵 乇丿 賲蹖 讴賳賴 賵 丌禺乇卮貙 亘丿賵賳 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 噩賵丕亘貙 賲爻卅賱賴 乇賵 乇賴丕 賲蹖讴賳賴.
孬丕賳蹖丕賸 賲讴乇乇丕賸 丕夭 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕蹖 賲睾丕賱胤蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳賴. 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕卮 亘賴 賯丿乇蹖 丌卮讴丕乇丕 賲睾丕賱胤蹖 賴爻鬲賳 讴賴 丌丿賲 賲乇丿丿 賲蹖 賲賵賳賴 讴賴 丌蹖丕 丕蹖賳 賴丕 噩丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳 蹖丕 卮賵禺蹖.
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘
丕賵賱蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕夭 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 禺賵賳丿賲. 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 蹖賴 爻乇蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏賴 卮 乇賵 禺賵賳丿賲 賵 亘毓囟蹖 賴丕卮 (賲孬賱 丿賮丕毓蹖丕鬲 爻賯乇丕胤) 禺蹖賱蹖 毓丕賱蹖 賴爻鬲賳. 賲爻卅賱賴 丕蹖 丕禺賱丕賯蹖-賮賱爻賮蹖 乇賵 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖讴賳賳 賵 乇丕噩毓 亘賴卮 亘丨孬 賲蹖讴賳賳 賵 匕賴賳 丌丿賲 乇賵 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇賳.
讴鬲丕亘 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 卮乇丨 蹖賴 賲亘丕丨孬賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 蹖賴 胤乇賮卮 爻賯乇丕胤 (丕爻鬲丕丿 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳) 賵 胤乇賮 丿蹖诏賴 卮 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖 賴丕爻鬲 賵 蹖賴 爻乇蹖 鬲賲丕卮丕趩蹖 賴賲 丿丕乇賴. 亘丨孬 爻乇 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 丌蹖丕 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 毓丿丕賱鬲 丨賯蹖賯蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴 蹖丕 賳賴. 丕蹖賳 亘丨孬 賲賳鬲賴蹖 賲蹖卮賴 亘賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 丕賳爻丕賳 毓丕丿賱 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 蹖 毓丿賱 賲丨賵乇 賵 亘毓丿貙 賲丿蹖賳賴 蹖 賮丕囟賱賴 蹖 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳蹖.
亘禺卮 賲賮氐賱蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘賴 卮乇丨 賳馗乇蹖賴 蹖 "賲購孬購賱" 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭賴 賵 鬲賲孬蹖賱 "睾丕乇" 賲毓乇賵賮 賴賲 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘賴.
賲賴賲 鬲乇蹖賳 賲卮讴賱 讴鬲丕亘貙 鬲讴 氐丿丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿賳卮賴. 蹖毓賳蹖 爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖 丕蹖 讴賴 胤乇賮 丿蹖诏賴 蹖 亘丨孬賴貙 倬爻 丕夭 趩賳丿 氐賮丨賴 蹖 丕賵賱貙 毓賯亘 賳卮蹖賳蹖 賲蹖 讴賳賴 賵 鬲丕 倬賵賳氐丿 氐賮丨賴 蹖 亘毓丿貙 賮賯胤 爻賯乇丕胤 丨乇賮 賲蹖夭賳賴 賵 鬲賲丕卮丕趩蹖 賴丕 鬲兀蹖蹖丿 賲蹖讴賳賳.
丿乇 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳貙 诏乇賵賴蹖 賲毓賱賲 丿賵乇賴 诏乇丿 亘賵丿賳 讴賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 賵讴丕賱鬲 亘賴 噩賵丕賳 賴丕 蹖丕丿 賲蹖丿丕丿賳貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賴丕 "爻賵賮蹖爻鬲" 蹖丕 "爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖" 蹖毓賳蹖 "丨讴蹖賲" 賲蹖 诏賮鬲賳. 賲毓乇賵賮賴 讴賴 丕蹖賳 诏乇賵賴 丿賵 禺氐賵氐蹖鬲 賲賴賲 丿丕卮鬲賳: 丕賵賱貙 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲 丿乇 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭. 丿賵賲: 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賲睾丕賱胤賴 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 賳鬲蹖噩賴.
丕賮賱丕胤賵賳
賲毓乇賵賮賴 讴賴 爻賯乇丕胤 賵 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 毓賱蹖賴 丕蹖賳 丿賵 禺氐賵氐蹖鬲 爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖 賴丕 賲賵囟毓 诏乇賮鬲賳 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 蹖 賲賯丕亘賱賴 亘丕 卮讴丕讴蹖鬲貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴 蹖 賲賯丕亘賱賴 亘丕 賲睾丕賱胤賴貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲賳胤賯 亘賵丿.
丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕蹖賳 胤賵乇蹖 鬲賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賲毓乇賮蹖 卮丿賴. 賲卮讴賱 丕蹖賳噩丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 禺賵丿卮 丕亘丿丕 丕蹖賳 胤賵乇 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 鬲賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕卮貙 卮丿蹖丿丕賸 卮讴賾丕讴賴. 鬲賵蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丨孬 賴丕卮貙 賮賯胤 丕蹖噩丕丿 爻丐丕賱 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 噩賵丕亘 賴丕蹖 賲賲讴賳 乇賵 胤乇丨 賵 乇丿 賲蹖 讴賳賴 賵 丌禺乇卮貙 亘丿賵賳 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 噩賵丕亘貙 賲爻卅賱賴 乇賵 乇賴丕 賲蹖讴賳賴.
孬丕賳蹖丕賸 賲讴乇乇丕賸 丕夭 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕蹖 賲睾丕賱胤蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳賴. 亘毓囟蹖 丕夭 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕卮 亘賴 賯丿乇蹖 丌卮讴丕乇丕 賲睾丕賱胤蹖 賴爻鬲賳 讴賴 丌丿賲 賲乇丿丿 賲蹖 賲賵賳賴 讴賴 丌蹖丕 丕蹖賳 賴丕 噩丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳 蹖丕 卮賵禺蹖.
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘
丕賵賱蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕夭 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 禺賵賳丿賲. 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 蹖賴 爻乇蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏賴 卮 乇賵 禺賵賳丿賲 賵 亘毓囟蹖 賴丕卮 (賲孬賱 丿賮丕毓蹖丕鬲 爻賯乇丕胤) 禺蹖賱蹖 毓丕賱蹖 賴爻鬲賳. 賲爻卅賱賴 丕蹖 丕禺賱丕賯蹖-賮賱爻賮蹖 乇賵 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖讴賳賳 賵 乇丕噩毓 亘賴卮 亘丨孬 賲蹖讴賳賳 賵 匕賴賳 丌丿賲 乇賵 亘賴 讴丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇賳.
讴鬲丕亘 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 卮乇丨 蹖賴 賲亘丕丨孬賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 蹖賴 胤乇賮卮 爻賯乇丕胤 (丕爻鬲丕丿 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳) 賵 胤乇賮 丿蹖诏賴 卮 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖 賴丕爻鬲 賵 蹖賴 爻乇蹖 鬲賲丕卮丕趩蹖 賴賲 丿丕乇賴. 亘丨孬 爻乇 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 丌蹖丕 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賳丕賲 毓丿丕賱鬲 丨賯蹖賯蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴 蹖丕 賳賴. 丕蹖賳 亘丨孬 賲賳鬲賴蹖 賲蹖卮賴 亘賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 丕賳爻丕賳 毓丕丿賱 賵 噩丕賲毓賴 蹖 毓丿賱 賲丨賵乇 賵 亘毓丿貙 賲丿蹖賳賴 蹖 賮丕囟賱賴 蹖 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳蹖.
亘禺卮 賲賮氐賱蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 亘賴 卮乇丨 賳馗乇蹖賴 蹖 "賲購孬購賱" 賲蹖 倬乇丿丕夭賴 賵 鬲賲孬蹖賱 "睾丕乇" 賲毓乇賵賮 賴賲 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘賴.
賲賴賲 鬲乇蹖賳 賲卮讴賱 讴鬲丕亘貙 鬲讴 氐丿丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿賳卮賴. 蹖毓賳蹖 爻賵賮爻胤丕蹖蹖 丕蹖 讴賴 胤乇賮 丿蹖诏賴 蹖 亘丨孬賴貙 倬爻 丕夭 趩賳丿 氐賮丨賴 蹖 丕賵賱貙 毓賯亘 賳卮蹖賳蹖 賲蹖 讴賳賴 賵 鬲丕 倬賵賳氐丿 氐賮丨賴 蹖 亘毓丿貙 賮賯胤 爻賯乇丕胤 丨乇賮 賲蹖夭賳賴 賵 鬲賲丕卮丕趩蹖 賴丕 鬲兀蹖蹖丿 賲蹖讴賳賳.
Want to read
May 14, 2022I like pretending I am smart!
January 15, 2018
It's been far too long ago since I read this to write a critical review, however, it should be required reading for all students in America at the very least. Oh how far we have strayed.
December 15, 2021
Plato's Republic (c. 375 BCE) is a Socratic dialogue in which Socrates with his interlocutors devise a conceptually ideal State. Socrates is our protagonist who is leading the discussion and is clearly dissatisfied with his government and State's structure and its system of values and justice.
Plato describes an ideal State as one that encourages gender equality, education for all, meritocracy, and is ruled by no other than a philosopher-king. Nevertheless, Plato envisions a Republic that practices eugenics and enforces censorship on unsuitable writings and poems. A State in which the government is entitled to manipulate and deceive the public for the benefit of the State.
Plato describes the four forms of government and their characteristics and how one evolves from the other. Timocracy will end up transforming into an oligarchy, and oligarchy to the best available form of government, democracy. Although, excessive freedom in a democratic state will lead to tyranny. Plato bases and links the various State systems to the character of its people.
But the book has so much more to offer than dialogues on the various types of organized political States and governments.
Plato goes on to define a true philosopher as the one who yearns for knowledge of that which is eternal and unchanging and is not disturbed by things that come to be and decay. A philosopher contemplates the essence of a thing in search of a true understanding as this is the only way to enhance and elevate the soul towards the supreme good. He sees the dialectical method of reasoning as the most effective way to arrive at a truth, while knowledge attained by pure reasoning and logic is superior to the knowledge obtained by sense perception or experiences. Plato perceives the knowledge obtained by our five senses as just copies of the ideal form that only exists and is comprehensible by our intellect. But in order to attain this knowledge, one must first comprehend the abstract science of numbers, arithmetic, and geometry.
Reasoning is presented as the principal human cognitive power, followed by the process of discursive thinking, faith, and our ability to distinguish perceived images from reality. Similarly, our immortal soul's most elevated component is reason, as well, while the urges for honor and sensual pleasures are its lowest parts.
I read the book in my native Montenegrin language and I look forward to a reread in an English translation.
Plato describes an ideal State as one that encourages gender equality, education for all, meritocracy, and is ruled by no other than a philosopher-king. Nevertheless, Plato envisions a Republic that practices eugenics and enforces censorship on unsuitable writings and poems. A State in which the government is entitled to manipulate and deceive the public for the benefit of the State.
Plato describes the four forms of government and their characteristics and how one evolves from the other. Timocracy will end up transforming into an oligarchy, and oligarchy to the best available form of government, democracy. Although, excessive freedom in a democratic state will lead to tyranny. Plato bases and links the various State systems to the character of its people.
But the book has so much more to offer than dialogues on the various types of organized political States and governments.
Plato goes on to define a true philosopher as the one who yearns for knowledge of that which is eternal and unchanging and is not disturbed by things that come to be and decay. A philosopher contemplates the essence of a thing in search of a true understanding as this is the only way to enhance and elevate the soul towards the supreme good. He sees the dialectical method of reasoning as the most effective way to arrive at a truth, while knowledge attained by pure reasoning and logic is superior to the knowledge obtained by sense perception or experiences. Plato perceives the knowledge obtained by our five senses as just copies of the ideal form that only exists and is comprehensible by our intellect. But in order to attain this knowledge, one must first comprehend the abstract science of numbers, arithmetic, and geometry.
Reasoning is presented as the principal human cognitive power, followed by the process of discursive thinking, faith, and our ability to distinguish perceived images from reality. Similarly, our immortal soul's most elevated component is reason, as well, while the urges for honor and sensual pleasures are its lowest parts.
I read the book in my native Montenegrin language and I look forward to a reread in an English translation.
August 29, 2016
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 诏乇丕賳賯丿乇貙 亘丕 賵噩賵丿賽 卮賳丕禺鬲蹖 讴賴 丕夭 芦丕賮賱丕胤賵賳禄 亘賴 賵爻蹖賱踿 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賴丕蹖賽 夭賲丕賳賽 丕賵貙 亘丿爻鬲 賲蹖 丌賵乇蹖賲貙 亘丿賵賳賽 鬲乇丿蹖丿 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 賲睾乇賵乇 賵 賲禺丕賱賮賽 丿丕賳卮 賵 賴賳乇 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵 丕诏乇 丨乇賮賽 丿乇爻鬲 賵 賲孬丕賱賽 夭蹖亘丕蹖蹖貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丌賲丿賴 亘丕卮丿 賳蹖夭貙 丕夭 賳賵卮鬲賳賽 爻禺賳丕賳賽 丕爻鬲丕丿賽 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇 芦 爻賯乇丕胤禄 亘丿爻鬲 丌賲丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 趩乇丕讴賴 芦 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳禄貙 讴賴 亘丕 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲賽 丿丕賳卮 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳蹖 趩賵賳 芦 丿賲讴乇蹖鬲禄 賲禺丕賱賮 亘賵丿 賵 賳馗乇蹖賴 賴丕蹖賽 毓賱賲蹖 賲孬賱賽 芦 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭 丕夭 賴蹖趩 丨丕丿孬 賳賲蹖卮賵丿禄 賵 蹖丕 賳馗乇蹖踿 芦 丕鬲賲蹖禄 丿賲讴乇蹖鬲 乇丕 卮蹖胤丕賳蹖 賵 賲禺丕賱賮賽 丿蹖賳 賵 賲匕賴亘 賵 賮爻丕丿賽 亘卮乇貙 賯賱賲丿丕丿 賲蹖讴乇丿貙 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丿丕乇丕蹖賽 爻禺賳丕賳賽 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賴 亘丕卮丿貙 夭蹖乇丕 丿乇 毓賲賱 趩蹖夭賽 丿蹖诏乇 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賴 亘賵丿
亘賴乇 丨丕賱 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 毓夭蹖夭貙 爻禺賳蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴乇丿賲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 丿乇讴賽 亘賴鬲乇賽 卮賲丕貙 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 夭亘丕賳賽 爻丕丿賴 賵 亘丕 丕賳丿讴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲蹖 丿乇 夭蹖乇 賳賵卮鬲賲 賵 亘賴 丨丕賱 賵 乇賵夭賽 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲乇丿賲賽 毓乇亘 倬乇爻鬲賽 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳蹖夭 卮亘丕賴鬲 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 丕夭 讴賵丿讴蹖 丕丨讴丕賲賽 睾蹖乇賽 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 賵 睾蹖乇 毓賯賱丕賳蹖賽 丕爻賱丕賲 乇丕 丕夭 倬丿乇 賵 賲丕丿乇 亘賴 丕乇孬 亘乇丿賴 賵 賴賲趩賵賳 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲賽 亘蹖禺乇丿 賵 賲賯賱賾丿貙 卮毓丕乇賴丕 賵 丕毓賲丕賱賽 毓乇亘 賴丕蹖賽 賳丕丿丕賳 乇丕 鬲讴乇丕乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丕夭 丕賳噩丕賲 賳丿丕丿賳賽 丌賳 丕毓賲丕賱 亘蹖賲 賵 賴乇丕爻 丿丕乇賳丿貙 丕賳诏丕乇 賴蹖趩 賵賯鬲 賳賲蹖 禺賵丕賴賳丿 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴 賵 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘丕鬲賱丕賯賽 毓賲蹖賯 禺丕乇噩 卮賵賳丿
------------------------------------------------
毓夭蹖夭丕賳賲貙 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖丿 睾丕乇蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 丕夭 爻賵乇丕禺賽 睾丕乇 賳賵乇 亘賴 丿乇賵賳賽 睾丕乇 賲蹖鬲丕亘丿貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 睾丕乇 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 丕夭 夭賲丕賳賽 禺乇丿爻丕賱蹖 夭賳丿丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丿爻鬲 賵 倬丕 賵 诏乇丿賳賽 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘丕 夭賳噩蹖乇 亘爻鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 胤賵乇蹖 讴賴 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 亘賴 丕胤乇丕賮 賳诏丕賴 讴賳賳丿貙 賵 鬲賳賴丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 乇賵亘賴鈥屫辟堐屬� 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴 讴賳賳丿... 丿乇 亘丕賱丕 賵 倬卮鬲賽 爻乇賽 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 丌鬲卮蹖 賮乇賵夭丕賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳賵乇賽 丿乇賵賳賽 睾丕乇 丕夭 丌賳 鬲兀賲蹖賳 賲蹖卮賵丿貙 亘蹖賳賽 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 賵 丌賳 丌鬲卮貙 乇丕賴蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 丕賲鬲丿丕丿賽 丌賳貙 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 讴賵鬲丕賴蹖 讴卮蹖丿賴 丕賳丿 讴賴 亘蹖 卮亘丕賴鬲 亘賴 倬乇丿踿 禺蹖賲賴 卮亘 亘丕夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲
賲乇丿賲 丕夭 讴賳丕乇賽 丌賳 丿蹖賵丕乇 诏匕乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丕賳賵丕毓賽 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳賽 丕卮蹖丕亍 賵 賲噩爻賲賴 賴丕蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 丨蹖賵丕賳 乇丕 亘丕 禺賵丿卮丕賳 丨賲賱 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丌賳 丕賮乇丕丿 讴賴 丕卮蹖丕亍 乇丕 丿乇 丿爻鬲 丿丕乇賳丿 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 亘毓囟蹖 丿蹖诏乇 爻丕讴鬲 賴爻鬲賳丿
賴賳诏丕賲蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕賮乇丕丿 亘丕 丕卮蹖丕亍 丿乇 丿爻鬲卮丕賳 丕夭 讴賳丕乇賽 丌賳 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 賲賵乇丿賽 賳馗乇 毓亘賵乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 爻丕蹖踿 丕卮蹖丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賴賲乇丕賴賽 禺賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 亘賴 乇賵蹖賽 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 睾丕乇 賵 乇賵亘乇賵蹖賽 氐賵乇鬲賽 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 亘丕夭鬲丕亘 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 賵賯鬲蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丌賳 丕賮乇丕丿賽 乇賴诏匕乇 亘丕 賴賲 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳賽 亘蹖趩丕乇賴 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 讴賴 賴乇 蹖讴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 氐丿丕賴丕 賲鬲毓賱賯 亘賴 卮蹖卅蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿 讴賴 乇賵亘乇賵蹖賽 丌賳賴丕 賵 丿乇 乇賵蹖賽 丿蹖賵丕乇 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲
丨丕賱 丕诏乇 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 夭賳丿丕賳蹖 賴丕貙 丌夭丕丿 卮賵賳丿 賵 亘賴 丿賴丕賳踿 睾丕乇 亘乇爻賳丿貙 亘賴 賲丨囟賽 丿蹖丿賳賽 賳賵乇賽 禺賵乇卮蹖丿貙 趩卮賲丕賳卮丕賳 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱賽 毓丕丿鬲 賳丿丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 乇賵卮賳丕蹖蹖 丕匕蹖鬲 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 丕氐賱丕賸 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丌賳 丕卮蹖丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賯亘賱丕賸 賲蹖丿蹖丿賳丿 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳賳丿貙 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 丕夭 鬲乇爻 爻乇蹖毓 亘乇賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿 亘賴 丿丕禺賱賽 睾丕乇 賵 亘丕夭 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 噩賴賱 賵 賳丕丿丕賳蹖 亘丕賯蹖 賲蹖賲丕賳賳丿 賵 賴賲趩賳丕賳 亘賴 爻丕蹖踿 丕卮蹖丕亍 賳诏丕賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿... 賵賱蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 毓丿賴 丕蹖 丕夭 丌賳 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳蹖 讴賴 乇賴丕 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 亘賴 睾丕乇 亘乇賳賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿 賵 丌賳賯丿乇 鬲丨賲賱 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 鬲丕 趩卮賲丕賳卮丕賳 亘賴 賳賵乇 毓丕丿鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 爻倬爻 賲鬲賵噩賴賽 丨賯蹖賯鬲 卮丿賴 賵 賲蹖賮賴賲賳丿 讴賴 鬲丕 亘賴 丨丕賱 賮賯胤 爻丕蹖踿 丕卮蹖丕亍 乇丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴 賲蹖讴乇丿賳丿貙 賳賴 禺賵丿賽 丨賯蹖賯蹖賽 丌賳賴丕 乇丕... 賵 氐丿丕賴丕 賳蹖夭 賲鬲毓賱賯 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲... 丿乇爻鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕亘鬲丿丕 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿趩丕乇 爻乇诏乇丿丕賳蹖 卮賵賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 亘丕 丨賯蹖賯鬲 乇賵亘乇賵 卮丿賴 賵 丌诏丕賴 賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿
爻倬爻 丌賳 丕賮乇丕丿賽 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴 亘賴 睾丕乇 亘丕夭 賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿 賵 丨賯蹖賯鬲 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 睾丕乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 丌賳 丕丨賲賯 賴丕 賵 鬲乇爻賵賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 睾丕乇 賲丕賳丿賳丿 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 賲蹖禺賳丿賳丿 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賲爻禺乇賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖賳丿: 丿乇 亘蹖乇賵賳賽 睾丕乇 賳賵乇 亘賴 趩卮賲丕賳賽 卮賲丕 鬲丕亘蹖丿賴 賵 趩卮賲丕賳賽 卮賲丕 賮丕爻丿 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 禺賵亘 卮丿 賲丕 亘蹖乇賵賳 丕夭 睾丕乇 賳賲丕賳丿蹖賲貙 賵诏乇賳賴 賴賲趩賵賳 卮賲丕 丿蹖賵丕賳賴 賲蹖卮丿蹖賲
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 夭賳噩蹖乇賽 亘賯蹖踿 夭賳丿丕賳蹖 賴丕 乇丕 亘丕夭 讴賳賳丿 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賳噩丕鬲 丿賴賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 賴賲丕賳 鬲乇爻賵賴丕蹖賽 丕丨賲賯 賵 賳丕丿丕賳 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 賲亘丕乇夭賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丕爻賲賽 诏賳丕賴诏丕乇 讴賲乇 亘賴 乇蹖禺鬲賳 禺賵賳賽 丌賳賴丕 賵 讴卮鬲賳賽 丌賳 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖賽 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴貙 賲蹖亘賳丿賳丿
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 禺乇丿诏乇丕貙 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 亘丕 亘蹖丕賳賽 丕蹖賳 賲孬丕賱 噩乇賯賴 丕蹖 丿乇 匕賴賳 毓丿賴 丕蹖 夭丿賴 亘丕卮賲 讴賴 亘賴 賲丕賳賳丿賽 讴爻丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 亘賳丿賽 夭賳噩蹖乇 乇賴丕 卮丿賴 丕賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 賲蹖鬲乇爻賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 睾丕乇 賵 鬲丕乇蹖讴蹖 賵 噩賴丕賱鬲賽 丿蹖賳 賵 賲匕賴亘 禺丕乇噩 卮賵賳丿
<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
亘賴乇 丨丕賱 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 毓夭蹖夭貙 爻禺賳蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴乇丿賲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 丿乇讴賽 亘賴鬲乇賽 卮賲丕貙 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 夭亘丕賳賽 爻丕丿賴 賵 亘丕 丕賳丿讴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲蹖 丿乇 夭蹖乇 賳賵卮鬲賲 賵 亘賴 丨丕賱 賵 乇賵夭賽 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲乇丿賲賽 毓乇亘 倬乇爻鬲賽 丕蹖乇丕賳 賳蹖夭 卮亘丕賴鬲 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 丕夭 讴賵丿讴蹖 丕丨讴丕賲賽 睾蹖乇賽 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 賵 睾蹖乇 毓賯賱丕賳蹖賽 丕爻賱丕賲 乇丕 丕夭 倬丿乇 賵 賲丕丿乇 亘賴 丕乇孬 亘乇丿賴 賵 賴賲趩賵賳 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲賽 亘蹖禺乇丿 賵 賲賯賱賾丿貙 卮毓丕乇賴丕 賵 丕毓賲丕賱賽 毓乇亘 賴丕蹖賽 賳丕丿丕賳 乇丕 鬲讴乇丕乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丕夭 丕賳噩丕賲 賳丿丕丿賳賽 丌賳 丕毓賲丕賱 亘蹖賲 賵 賴乇丕爻 丿丕乇賳丿貙 丕賳诏丕乇 賴蹖趩 賵賯鬲 賳賲蹖 禺賵丕賴賳丿 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴 賵 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘丕鬲賱丕賯賽 毓賲蹖賯 禺丕乇噩 卮賵賳丿
------------------------------------------------
毓夭蹖夭丕賳賲貙 鬲氐賵乇 讴賳蹖丿 睾丕乇蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 丕夭 爻賵乇丕禺賽 睾丕乇 賳賵乇 亘賴 丿乇賵賳賽 睾丕乇 賲蹖鬲丕亘丿貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 睾丕乇 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 丕夭 夭賲丕賳賽 禺乇丿爻丕賱蹖 夭賳丿丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丿爻鬲 賵 倬丕 賵 诏乇丿賳賽 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘丕 夭賳噩蹖乇 亘爻鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 胤賵乇蹖 讴賴 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 亘賴 丕胤乇丕賮 賳诏丕賴 讴賳賳丿貙 賵 鬲賳賴丕 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 乇賵亘賴鈥屫辟堐屬� 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴 讴賳賳丿... 丿乇 亘丕賱丕 賵 倬卮鬲賽 爻乇賽 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 丌鬲卮蹖 賮乇賵夭丕賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳賵乇賽 丿乇賵賳賽 睾丕乇 丕夭 丌賳 鬲兀賲蹖賳 賲蹖卮賵丿貙 亘蹖賳賽 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 賵 丌賳 丌鬲卮貙 乇丕賴蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 丕賲鬲丿丕丿賽 丌賳貙 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 讴賵鬲丕賴蹖 讴卮蹖丿賴 丕賳丿 讴賴 亘蹖 卮亘丕賴鬲 亘賴 倬乇丿踿 禺蹖賲賴 卮亘 亘丕夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲
賲乇丿賲 丕夭 讴賳丕乇賽 丌賳 丿蹖賵丕乇 诏匕乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 丕賳賵丕毓賽 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳賽 丕卮蹖丕亍 賵 賲噩爻賲賴 賴丕蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 丨蹖賵丕賳 乇丕 亘丕 禺賵丿卮丕賳 丨賲賱 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丌賳 丕賮乇丕丿 讴賴 丕卮蹖丕亍 乇丕 丿乇 丿爻鬲 丿丕乇賳丿 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 亘毓囟蹖 丿蹖诏乇 爻丕讴鬲 賴爻鬲賳丿
賴賳诏丕賲蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕賮乇丕丿 亘丕 丕卮蹖丕亍 丿乇 丿爻鬲卮丕賳 丕夭 讴賳丕乇賽 丌賳 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 賲賵乇丿賽 賳馗乇 毓亘賵乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 爻丕蹖踿 丕卮蹖丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賴賲乇丕賴賽 禺賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 亘賴 乇賵蹖賽 丿蹖賵丕乇賽 睾丕乇 賵 乇賵亘乇賵蹖賽 氐賵乇鬲賽 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳 亘丕夭鬲丕亘 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 賵賯鬲蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丌賳 丕賮乇丕丿賽 乇賴诏匕乇 亘丕 賴賲 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳賽 亘蹖趩丕乇賴 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 讴賴 賴乇 蹖讴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 氐丿丕賴丕 賲鬲毓賱賯 亘賴 卮蹖卅蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿 讴賴 乇賵亘乇賵蹖賽 丌賳賴丕 賵 丿乇 乇賵蹖賽 丿蹖賵丕乇 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲
丨丕賱 丕诏乇 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 夭賳丿丕賳蹖 賴丕貙 丌夭丕丿 卮賵賳丿 賵 亘賴 丿賴丕賳踿 睾丕乇 亘乇爻賳丿貙 亘賴 賲丨囟賽 丿蹖丿賳賽 賳賵乇賽 禺賵乇卮蹖丿貙 趩卮賲丕賳卮丕賳 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱賽 毓丕丿鬲 賳丿丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 乇賵卮賳丕蹖蹖 丕匕蹖鬲 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 丕氐賱丕賸 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丌賳 丕卮蹖丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賯亘賱丕賸 賲蹖丿蹖丿賳丿 乇丕 亘亘蹖賳賳丿貙 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 丕夭 鬲乇爻 爻乇蹖毓 亘乇賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿 亘賴 丿丕禺賱賽 睾丕乇 賵 亘丕夭 丿乇 賴賲丕賳 噩賴賱 賵 賳丕丿丕賳蹖 亘丕賯蹖 賲蹖賲丕賳賳丿 賵 賴賲趩賳丕賳 亘賴 爻丕蹖踿 丕卮蹖丕亍 賳诏丕賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿... 賵賱蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 毓丿賴 丕蹖 丕夭 丌賳 夭賳丿丕賳蹖丕賳蹖 讴賴 乇賴丕 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 亘賴 睾丕乇 亘乇賳賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿 賵 丌賳賯丿乇 鬲丨賲賱 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 鬲丕 趩卮賲丕賳卮丕賳 亘賴 賳賵乇 毓丕丿鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 爻倬爻 賲鬲賵噩賴賽 丨賯蹖賯鬲 卮丿賴 賵 賲蹖賮賴賲賳丿 讴賴 鬲丕 亘賴 丨丕賱 賮賯胤 爻丕蹖踿 丕卮蹖丕亍 乇丕 賲卮丕賴丿賴 賲蹖讴乇丿賳丿貙 賳賴 禺賵丿賽 丨賯蹖賯蹖賽 丌賳賴丕 乇丕... 賵 氐丿丕賴丕 賳蹖夭 賲鬲毓賱賯 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲... 丿乇爻鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕亘鬲丿丕 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿趩丕乇 爻乇诏乇丿丕賳蹖 卮賵賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 亘丕 丨賯蹖賯鬲 乇賵亘乇賵 卮丿賴 賵 丌诏丕賴 賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿
爻倬爻 丌賳 丕賮乇丕丿賽 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴 亘賴 睾丕乇 亘丕夭 賲蹖诏乇丿賳丿 賵 丨賯蹖賯鬲 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 丿乇 睾丕乇 賴爻鬲賳丿 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 丌賳 丕丨賲賯 賴丕 賵 鬲乇爻賵賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 睾丕乇 賲丕賳丿賳丿 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 賲蹖禺賳丿賳丿 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賲爻禺乇賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖賳丿: 丿乇 亘蹖乇賵賳賽 睾丕乇 賳賵乇 亘賴 趩卮賲丕賳賽 卮賲丕 鬲丕亘蹖丿賴 賵 趩卮賲丕賳賽 卮賲丕 賮丕爻丿 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 禺賵亘 卮丿 賲丕 亘蹖乇賵賳 丕夭 睾丕乇 賳賲丕賳丿蹖賲貙 賵诏乇賳賴 賴賲趩賵賳 卮賲丕 丿蹖賵丕賳賴 賲蹖卮丿蹖賲
丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 讴爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 夭賳噩蹖乇賽 亘賯蹖踿 夭賳丿丕賳蹖 賴丕 乇丕 亘丕夭 讴賳賳丿 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 賳噩丕鬲 丿賴賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 賴賲丕賳 鬲乇爻賵賴丕蹖賽 丕丨賲賯 賵 賳丕丿丕賳 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 賲亘丕乇夭賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丕爻賲賽 诏賳丕賴诏丕乇 讴賲乇 亘賴 乇蹖禺鬲賳 禺賵賳賽 丌賳賴丕 賵 讴卮鬲賳賽 丌賳 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕蹖賽 丌诏丕賴 卮丿賴貙 賲蹖亘賳丿賳丿
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 禺乇丿诏乇丕貙 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 亘丕 亘蹖丕賳賽 丕蹖賳 賲孬丕賱 噩乇賯賴 丕蹖 丿乇 匕賴賳 毓丿賴 丕蹖 夭丿賴 亘丕卮賲 讴賴 亘賴 賲丕賳賳丿賽 讴爻丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 亘賳丿賽 夭賳噩蹖乇 乇賴丕 卮丿賴 丕賳丿貙 賵賱蹖 賲蹖鬲乇爻賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 睾丕乇 賵 鬲丕乇蹖讴蹖 賵 噩賴丕賱鬲賽 丿蹖賳 賵 賲匕賴亘 禺丕乇噩 卮賵賳丿
<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
August 20, 2020
Plato's kinda annoying. Sure, he formulated a number of great ideas. In fact these ideas may have revolutionized philosophy back in his time. But these fallacy-ridden arguments don't really sit well. His perception of the perfect state and the perfect man, the just and the unjust man, is so flawed and so out of reach from reality. Despite these, I did learn something, especially about a good deal of ethics, which I think was the only aspect that I liked from this book.
May 20, 2011
Just to be clear, my rating is for the edition of the Republic I read- the Oxford World's Classics text translated by Robin Waterfield. Giving stars to the Republic is so flagrantly stupid that I can't even come up with a suitably stupid analogy. Giving stars to the Mona Lisa? Not even close. Giving stars to Dante? Not the same, because that deserves five stars. The Republic simultaneously deserves five stars, for kick-starting Western philosophy, social science, aesthetics, theology, and political thought. It poses a bunch of difficult questions in a way that no book before it does. That said, the arguments it uses and the answers it reaches are ridiculous and ridiculously flawed. That's okay. If you're smart enough to ask questions that keep people talking for over two millennia, you're allowed to airball the answers. You can tear the arguments of this book apart in more ways than any other work of respectable philosophy: Aristotle is way more internally coherent, even the most moronic contemporary popular 'scientist' has less absurd assumptions.
Anyway, really I wanted to review the edition. It's great. Waterfield jettisons the random 'book' divisions of the Republic. Ideally, I guess, you'd just publish the thing as one long rant, but in the interests of user-friendliness Waterfield's split the text up into chapters, each one of which more or less features one argument. This makes the flow of the dialogue much easier to follow. He also breaks up steps in the arguments of the longer chapters, so you don't get lost even if you're kind of half-arsing your reading. For that alone, he'd get four stars, but his notes are *brilliant* too. Philosophically engaged, historically aware, never willing to play cheerleader to Socrates' more obvious gaffs, but willing to go out on a limb to defend something that initially seems implausible. Waterfield's guiding thread is that you really should read the book as what it says it is: an investigation into morality (often translated as justice elsewhere), which proceeds by way of analogy. The political stuff is secondary; the real goal is to defend the idea that the moral person is happier and better in the long run. I say all this despite disagreeing with Waterfield's argument that the forms aren't metaphysical. I know why philosophers say that; the idea that Plato thought there were real Divine Bedframes floating somewhere in the fifth dimension is ridiculous. But he pretty clearly thought that ridiculous thing. Not because he was an idiot, though: he wanted to anchor truth is something which actually existed, but acknowledged the real lack of truthiness/justice/morality in the world as he found it. Good for him.
Anyway, really I wanted to review the edition. It's great. Waterfield jettisons the random 'book' divisions of the Republic. Ideally, I guess, you'd just publish the thing as one long rant, but in the interests of user-friendliness Waterfield's split the text up into chapters, each one of which more or less features one argument. This makes the flow of the dialogue much easier to follow. He also breaks up steps in the arguments of the longer chapters, so you don't get lost even if you're kind of half-arsing your reading. For that alone, he'd get four stars, but his notes are *brilliant* too. Philosophically engaged, historically aware, never willing to play cheerleader to Socrates' more obvious gaffs, but willing to go out on a limb to defend something that initially seems implausible. Waterfield's guiding thread is that you really should read the book as what it says it is: an investigation into morality (often translated as justice elsewhere), which proceeds by way of analogy. The political stuff is secondary; the real goal is to defend the idea that the moral person is happier and better in the long run. I say all this despite disagreeing with Waterfield's argument that the forms aren't metaphysical. I know why philosophers say that; the idea that Plato thought there were real Divine Bedframes floating somewhere in the fifth dimension is ridiculous. But he pretty clearly thought that ridiculous thing. Not because he was an idiot, though: he wanted to anchor truth is something which actually existed, but acknowledged the real lack of truthiness/justice/morality in the world as he found it. Good for him.
May 14, 2013
賴丕 兀賳丕 賯丿 賯乇兀鬲 兀禺賷乇丕賸 '噩賲賴賵乇賷丞' 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 賵賱賵 锟斤拷購賱亘 賲賳賷 兀賳 兀購毓亘賽賾乇 毓賳 丕賳胤亘丕毓賷 丨賵賱 噩賲賴賵乇賷鬲賴 亘噩賲賱丞 賲禺鬲氐乇賴貙 爻兀賯賵賱 賲丕 爻胤賻賾乇賴 賯賱賲賷 賮賷 丌禺乇 氐賮丨丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘:-
噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賷丨賰賲賴丕 賮賷賱爻賵賮 '禺賷丕賱賷'貙 賵爻購賰賻賾丕賳賴丕 乇噩丕賱 丌賱賷賷賳
* **** ** * ** **** *
鬲賳賯爻賲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 廿賱丕 毓卮乇丞 兀噩夭丕亍貙 兀賵 賰賲丕 丕爻賲丕賴丕 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 毓卮乇丞 賰鬲亘貙 賰賱 賰鬲丕亘 賷禺鬲氐 亘賲賵囟賵毓 賲毓賷賳 賷乇鬲亘胤 亘賲丕 爻亘賯賴 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕賸 賵孬賷賯丕賸 賵賲賰賲賱丕賸 賱賴 亘鬲賵爻毓貙 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 賷鬲丨丕賵乇 賮賷賴丕 "爻賯乇丕胤" 賲毓 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐
賲丕 賴賵 丕賱毓丿賱責 賵賴賱 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱毓丕丿賱 卮禺氐 爻毓賷丿 賳鬲賷噩丞 賱毓丿賱賴 賵丕賱馗丕賱賲 鬲毓賷爻 賱馗賱賲丞責! 賲賳 賴賳丕 鬲賳胤賱賯 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 賵賷鬲丿乇噩 爻賯乇丕胤 賲毓 賲丨丕賵乇賷賴 賮賷賴丕 氐毓賵丿丕賸 賵鬲賵爻毓丕賸 賱賷氐賱 廿賱賶 賲丿賷賳鬲賴 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞
爻賯乇丕胤 賲丨丕賵乇 "賲爻鬲賮夭" 賮賰乇賷丕賸 賵賴匕丕 賱賷爻 亘丕賱睾乇賷亘 賱胤亘賷毓鬲賴 "丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞"貙 鬲亘丿兀 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘噩丿丕賱 賯賵賷 亘賷賳賴 賵亘賷賳 賲丨丕賵乇賷賴 賵賱賰賳 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 賷爻鬲賱賲 爻賯乇丕胤 賵丨丿賴 丿賮丞 胤乇丨 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賵丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴 賵賷賯鬲氐乇 丿賵乇 賲丨丕賵乇賷賴 賮賷 丕賱孬賳丕亍貙 賵丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿貙 賵廿毓丕丿丞 爻丐丕賱賴 賲乇賴 兀禺乇賶 賵賳丕丿乇丕賸 賲丕 賷鬲丿禺賱 卮禺氐 亘爻丐丕賱 賷賯賱亘 丿賮丞 丕賱丨賵丕乇. 賴匕丕 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賷爻 亘丕賱賲丐孬乇 賰孬賷乇丕賸 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 鬲賵賻賾爻毓 丕賱丨賵丕乇 賱毓丿丞 噩賵丕賳亘 賲賳 丕賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱賲胤乇賵丨丞 賮爻賯乇丕胤 亘胤亘賷毓丞 丨賵丕乇賴 賷噩丕丿賱 賳賮爻賴 亘賳賮爻賴 賵賴賳丕 鬲賰賲賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞貙 賮賲丕 兀賳 賳乇鬲丕丨 賱賮賰乇丞 丨鬲賶 賷賯賱亘賴丕 乇兀爻丕賸 毓賱賶 毓賯亘 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶
兀乇丿鬲 賰鬲丕亘丞 賲禺鬲氐乇 卮丿賷丿 賱鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱賰鬲亘 賱廿毓胤丕亍 賮賰乇丞 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 毓賳 胤亘賷毓丞 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賯爻丕賲 賵丕丨鬲乇鬲 賵賱賲 鬲胤賵賱 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷乇丞貙 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賱賲賯丿賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀丐噩賱賴丕 丿丕卅賲丕 賱丨賷賳 丕賱丕賳鬲賴丕亍 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯爻賻賾賲 賰丕賱丌鬲賷*:-
丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶: 毓賳 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賵鬲毓乇賷賮賴丕 賵毓賳 賰賵賳賴丕 兀爻丕爻 賱賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱乇丕亘毓 毓賳 賴賷賰賱賷丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賰賷賮 賷噩亘 亘賳丕丐賴丕
丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞: 丕賱禺丕賲爻 賵丕賱爻丕丿爻 賵丕賱爻丕亘毓 賵氐賱鬲 賮賷賴丕 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 廿賱賶 兀毓賱賶 賯賲賲賴丕
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱孬丕賲賳 賵丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓賳 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱丨購賰賲 亘氐賮賴 毓丕賲丞 賵賳賮爻賷丞 賲賳 賷乇卅爻賴丕
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱毓丕卮乇: 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 卮丕賲賱 賱賲丕 爻亘賯貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱卮毓乇 賵賳賵毓賴 賮賷 '丕賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞'貙 賵賲爻兀賱丞 兀賳 丕賱亘丿賳 賷賮賳賶 賵丕賱乇賵丨 鬲亘賯賶 禺丕賱丿丞
* **** ** * ** **** *
賰卮禺氐賷賴 鬲毓卮賯 丕賱賰賲丕賱 賰丕賳鬲 兀賰孬乇 丕賱兀噩夭丕亍 賲鬲毓丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱禺丕賲爻 賵丕賱爻丕丿爻 賵丕賱爻丕亘毓貙 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 禺氐賵氐丕賸 '丕賱爻丕亘毓'. 賷丕 廿賱賴賷 賰賲 丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘賴貙 賵賲丕 亘賴 賲賳 丨賵丕乇 賷亘鬲丿卅 亘賯氐丞 '丕賱賰賴賮' 賵賷賳胤賱賯 亘賴丕 賱賷氐賱 廿賱賶 "鬲乇賳賷賲丞 毓賱賲 丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 兀氐賱 賷禺鬲氐 亘賴 丕賱兀賱賲毓賷 賮賯胤貙 賮丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲丿購乇賰 賴賵 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱噩丿賱賷 毓賱賶 丕賱丿賵丕賲*". 賯氐丞 丕賱賰賴賮 胤賵賷賱丞 賳賵毓丕賸 賲丕 賵賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕禺鬲氐丕乇賴丕 賴賳丕 爻鬲氐賷亘賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賲賯鬲賱 賵 鬲賮乇睾賴丕 賲賳 噩丕賳亘賴丕 丕賱兀賴賲 兀賱丕 賵賴賵 丕賱鬲爻賱爻賱 丕賱鬲氐丕毓丿賷 賱賮賰乇丞 賮賱爻賮賷丞 噩賲丕賱賴丕 賵賯賵鬲賴丕 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱氐毓賵丿 丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩賷 丿乇噩丞 丿乇噩丞
* **** ** * ** **** *
賱賵 兀乇丿鬲 鬲賯爻賷賲 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賱孬賱丕孬 兀賯爻丕賲 乇卅賷爻賷丞 賮廿賳賷 爻兀禺鬲氐乇 賲丨鬲賵丕賴丕 賰丕賱丌鬲賷:-
爻賷丕爻賷丕賸:- 氐丨賷丨 兀賳 丕賱賰賲丕賱 賷購賲鬲賽毓賿賳賽賷 賵丿丕卅賲丕賸 賲丕 兀爻毓賶 賱賴 賵賱賰賳賷 卮禺氐賷丞 賵丕賯毓賷丞 賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱廿夭毓丕噩 賵兀丿乇賰 兀賳賴 睾丕賷丞 賱丕 鬲購丿乇賰貙 賵賴匕賴 兀亘乇夭 賲卮丕賰賱 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 兀賯氐丿 丕賱亘毓丿 毓賳 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞
賷賯賵賱 '賰賱賵賰賱賵賳' 兀丨丿 賲丨丕賵乇賷 爻賯乇丕胤 賱賴:- [廿賳賰 賳丨賻賾丕鬲賹貙 賷丕 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賱賯丿 氐賳毓鬲 賱丨賰丕賲賳丕 鬲賲丕孬賷賱 丌賷丞賸 賮賷 丕賱噩賲丕賱]
賲毓 兀賳 丕賱噩賲賱丞 噩丕亍鬲 鬲毓亘賷乇丕賸 毓賳 丕賱廿毓噩丕亘 丕賱賰亘賷乇 亘賲丕 賯丕賱賴 爻賯乇丕胤 賵鬲兀賷賷丿賴 賵賱賰賳賷 賵噩丿鬲賴丕 鬲毓亘賷乇丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賯氐賵乇 賮賷 賮毓丕賱賷丞 丕賱賮賰乇丞. 賮毓賱丕賸 賴賲 賰賲丕 賵氐賮賴賲 賰賱賵賰賱賵賳 亘丕賱鬲賲丕孬賷賱貙 兀卮禺丕氐 賲賳 毓丕賱賲 丕賱禺賷丕賱 賷賲鬲丕夭賵賳 亘丕賱賰賲丕賱 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱匕賷 兀乇賶 兀賳賴 睾丕賷丞 賱丕 鬲丿乇賰 賵賵丕賯毓 賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 鬲丨賯賷賯賴
丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸:- 賴賷 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賴丕 丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷 丕賱匕賷 兀噩丿賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 馗丕賱賲 賵 丕賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀爻丕爻賴丕 丕賱毓丿賱 賰賲丕 賮賴賲鬲責!!
丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丕賸:-賴賳丕 丕賱毓噩亘 丕賱毓噩丕亘貙 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賳賮丕乇 丕賱卮丿賷丿 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱丕 兀毓乇賮 賰賷賮 丕禺鬲氐乇 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 亘賰賱賲丞 賵賱賰賳 爻兀賳賯賱 噩賲賱丞 賰鬲亘鬲賴丕 賰孬賷乇丕賸 毓賱賶 氐賮丨丕鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲毓胤賷 氐賵乇丞 賵丕囟丨丞貙 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丕賸 賴賷 兀卮亘賴 {亘夭乇賷亘丞 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲} 兀賰乇賲賰賲 丕賱賱賴貙 賮賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賲禺鬲賱 噩丿丕賸 賵賷卮鬲乇賰 賲毓 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賲賳 噩賴丞 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞貙 賮賱賰賲 兀賳 鬲鬲禺賷賱賵丕 賲丕 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿
賴賳丕 賷噩亘 匕賰乇 賳賯胤丞 賱賱廿賳氐丕賮 賵賴賷 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱夭賲賳 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 賵囟毓 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賮賷賴貙 毓賳丿賷 賮賰乇丞 毓賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 爻丕亘賯丕賸 賲賳 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賰鬲丕亘賷賳 毓賳 兀乇爻胤賵 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴賲 亘丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱廿賲丕賲 毓亘丿 丕賱賮鬲丕丨 廿賲丕賲 賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯亘丞 賲賳 丕賱夭賲賳. 賱賰賳 丨賱 爻賯乇丕胤 噩丕亍 亘丕賳 賷賳鬲賯賱 亘丕賱賲乇兀丞 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 '丕賱丨乇丞' 賲賳 馗賱丕賲 丕賱丨購賮乇 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賴丞 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賲賳 丕賱鬲胤乇賮 賵兀賯氐丿 亘兀賳 爻丕賵丕賴丕 亘丕賱乇噩賱 賱丿乇噩丞 兀賳 賷氐亘丨 丕賱鬲毓乇賷 兀賲丕 丕賱賲賱兀 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱鬲賲丕乇賷賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻丕亘賯丕鬲 丕賱賯鬲丕賱賷丞 兀爻賵丞 亘丕賱乇噩丕賱 卮賷亍 胤亘賷毓賷 賵賲賳 賷噩丿 賮賷賴 毓賱丞 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 賲賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賮廿賳 丕賱毓賱丞 賵丕賱禺胤兀 兀爻丕爻賴丕 賮賷 賳賮爻賴 丕賱賲乇賷囟丞 (丌賱賷賷賳). 賵賱賰賳 賷丨爻亘 賱賴 兀賳賴 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀賵賱 賲賳 丿毓丕 賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 兀爻賵丞 亘丕賱乇噩賱
* **** ** * ** **** *
丕賱鬲毓乇賷噩 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丕胤:-
#賯爻賸賲 爻賯乇丕胤 丕賱丿賵賱 (亘丕賱毓賲賵賲 亘毓賷丿丕賸 毓賳 噩賲賴賵乇賷鬲賴) 賱禺賲爻丞 兀賳賵丕毓:-
1. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱兀賮囟賱
2. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱卮乇賮
3. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賷睾丕乇賰賷賻賾丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱兀睾賳賷丕亍
4. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱卮毓亘
5. 丕賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賱賵丕丨丿
賵賱賰賲 兀賳 鬲鬲禺賷賱賵丕 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲乇鬲賷亘 鬲氐丕毓丿賷丕賸 賴賵 賲賯賷丕爻 丕賱賮爻丕丿貙 賱賲 丕爻鬲睾乇亘 胤乇丨丞 丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩賷 賱賱兀賳賵丕毓 賵氐賮丕鬲 丨丕賰賲賷賴丕 賵賳賮爻賷鬲賴賲 賵賱賰賳 丕爻鬲睾乇丕亘賷 丕賱兀卮丿 賴賵 賵氐賮丞 賱賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賵賲爻丕賵卅賴丕貙 兀賷 賳毓賲 兀賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賲賳夭賴丞 毓賳 丕賱禺胤兀 賵賱賰賳賴丕 鬲毓鬲亘乇 兀賯賱 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 卮乇丕賸 賮賷 賳馗乇賷貙 賲毓 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀賰孬乇 丕鬲囟丨鬲 賮賰乇丞 賲丕 賷乇賲賷 賱賴. 爻賯乇丕胤 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丿賵賱丞 "丕賱兀毓馗賲 鬲賳賵毓丕賸 賱賱胤亘丕卅毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇丿 賷賰賵賳 賯丕丿乇丕賸 兀賳 賷賳馗賲 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賰賲丕 賷乇賷丿 賱兀賳賴丕 丿賵賱丞 兀爻丕爻賴丕 丕賱丨乇賷丞*"貙 廿賱賶 丕賱丌賳 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賲卮賰賱丞 毓賱賶 賲丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 賵賱賰賳 賱賱毓賱賲 鬲毓乇賷賮 爻賯乇丕胤 賱賱丨乇賷丞 賴賵 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賷 匕賲賽賾賴 賱賴丕 賵胤乇丨賴 丕賱睾乇賷亘 賱賱賲賵囟賵毓
丕賱丨乇賷丞 亘兀賳 鬲賮毓賱 賲丕 鬲卮丕亍 胤丕賱賲丕 兀賳賰 賱賳 鬲丐匕賷 兀丨丿 兀賵 鬲賳鬲賴賰 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲鬲賮賯 毓賱賷賴丕 賴匕丕 賲鬲賮賯 毓賱賷賴貙 賱賰賳 爻賯乇丕胤 兀爻丕爻 胤乇丨賴 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賴賷 兀賳 鬲賮毓賱 賲丕 鬲卮丕亍 賵賱丕 鬲亘丕賱賷 亘兀丨丿 賮兀賳鬲 丨乇 賵兀賯鬲亘爻 賴賳丕 兀賰孬乇 丕賱兀賲賵乇 鬲胤乇賮丕賸 [ 賵賷噩亘 兀賳 兀囟賷賮 兀賳 賱丕 兀丨丿 賲賲賳 賱丕 賷毓乇賮 爻賷氐丿賯 賰賷賮 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱丿賶 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 鬲丨鬲 爻賷丕丿丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳. 廿賳賴丕 爻鬲賰賵賳 兀毓馗賲 亘賰孬賷乇 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 兀賷賻賾丞 丿賵賱丞 兀禺乇賶 賱兀賳賴 賷丨賯 丕賱賯賵賱: "賴賷 丕賱賰賱丕亘貙 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 丕賱賲孬賱貙 賴賷 乇亘賻賾丞 亘賷鬲賴丕". 賵鬲賲鬲賱賰 丕賱兀丨氐賳丞 賵丕賱丨賲賷乇 胤乇賷賯丞 賱賱爻賷乇 賮賷 賲賵丕夭丕丞 賲毓 賰賱 丕賱丨賯賵賯 賵丕賱噩賱丕賱 賱賱乇噩賱 丕賱丨乇賾 賵爻鬲丿賴爻 兀賷 卮禺氐 賲賲賳 賷兀鬲賷 賮賷 胤乇賷賯賴丕 廿匕丕 賱賲 鬲購禺賱賻 賱賴丕 丕賱胤乇賷賯. 廿賳 賰賱 卮賷亍 噩丕賴夭 賱賷鬲賮噩乇 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘丕賱丨乇賷丞] ... '毓噩亘賷' 賷丕 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賷丕 爻賯乇丕胤!!! 毓賱賶 乇兀賷 氐賱丕丨 噩丕賴賷賳
# 賮賷 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賴賳丕賰 鬲賰鬲賷賰 丨丕夭賲 丨鬲賶 鬲賳噩丨 丕賱禺胤丞貙 賲賳 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲亘丕丨 賵丕賱睾賷乇 賲亘丕丨 賵鬲氐賳賷賮 丕賱爻購賾賰丕賳 丨爻亘 胤亘賷毓鬲賴賲 賵鬲噩賴賷夭賴賲 亘丿賳賷丕賸 賵毓賯賱賷丕賸 賱賲賴丕賲賴賲. 噩賲賷賱 賰賱 賲丕 匕賰乇賴 賵賱賰賳賴 賷鬲賰賱賻賾賲 毓賳 胤亘賷毓丞 亘卮乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 亘胤亘毓賴丕 賱賴丕 卮賵丕匕 賷卮匕賵賳 毓賳 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 賵賱賳 鬲賰鬲賲賱 丕賱氐賵乇丞 丕賱賲胤賱賵亘丞 兀亘丿丕賸 賱賲丕 賷乇賷丿賴. 賵 賱兀賳 卮乇胤 鬲丨賯賯 賲丕 賷乇賷丿 賴賵 賳噩丕丨 丕賱禺胤丞 100%貙 賵氐賮鬲 爻賰賻賾丕賳賴丕 亘丕賱丌賱賷賷賳 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丞 賲乇丕噩毓鬲賷
# 賱賮鬲 丕賳鬲亘丕賴賷 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賲爻賲賵丨 亘賴 賮賷 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 [賱賰賳 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳亘賯賶 孬丕亘鬲賷賳 賮賷 丨賰賲賳丕 兀賳 丕賱鬲乇丕賳賷賲 廿賱賶 丕賱丌賱賴丞 賵 丕賱孬賳丕亍丕鬲 賱賱乇噩丕賱 丕賱卮賴賷乇賷賳 丕賱賮丕囟賱賷賳貙 賴賷 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷噩亘 兀賳 賳賯亘賱賴 賮賷 丿賵賱鬲賳丕. 賱兀賳賰 廿匕丕 鬲禺胤賻賾賷鬲 匕賱賰 賵爻賲丨鬲 賱毓乇賵爻 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賲毓爻賵賱丞 兀賳 鬲丿禺賱貙 廿賲丕 賮賷 賲賯丕胤毓 卮毓乇 丕賱亘胤賵賱丞 兀賵 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賵噩丿丕賳賷 丕賱睾賳丕卅賷貙 亘丿賱丕賸 賲賳 丿禺賵賱 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賵毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇 丕賱匕賷 丕毓鬲購亘賽乇賻 丕賱兀賮囟賱 毓賱賶 丕賱丿賵丕賲 亘丕賱乇賽賾囟丕 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰貙 賮賱賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丨賰賾丕賲 賮賷 丿賵賱鬲賳丕 爻賵賶 丕賱賱匕丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲]
# 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻賷賰賵賳 賲鬲毓丞 亘賱丕 丨丿賵丿 賱賲賳 賷賴賵賶 丕賱鬲毓乇囟 賱賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 亘噩丿賱賷丞 賵亘賲爻賲賷賾丕鬲 賵賳馗乇賷丕鬲 兀囟賲賳 亘爻賲丕毓賴丕 賱兀賵賱 賲乇丞 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 賱鬲賮氐賷氐 賱賱賮賰乇丞 賱毓丿丞 兀噩夭丕亍 賵丕賱禺賵氐 賮賷 鬲賮丕氐賷賱賴丕
#賱丕 兀毓乇賮 賱賲丕匕丕 兀丨爻爻鬲 兀賳 爻賯乇丕胤 賱賵 毓丕氐乇 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 賱兀爻賱賲 賮賵乇丕賸
# 賯乇兀鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘鬲乇噩賲丞 噩賷丿丞 噩丿丕賸 賱卮賵賯賷 丿丕賵丿 鬲賲乇丕夭
# 賱賲丕匕丕 孬賱丕孬 賳噩賵賲責! 禺賲爻 賳噩賵賲 賱賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 賵賳噩賲丞 賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳
#兀禺賷乇丕賸 賴賱 兀噩乇丐 毓賱賶 丕賱賯賵賱 賷丕 鬲乇賶 兀賳賷 兀鬲賲賳賶 兀賳 賱丕 兀賰賵賳 賯丿 賳爻賷鬲 卮賷卅丕賸責
* **** ** * ** **** *
鈥� 賲丕 亘賷賳 "...*" 賲賯鬲亘爻 亘鬲氐乇賮
鈥� 賲丕 亘賷賳 [...] 賲賯鬲亘爻
鈥� 賵鬲爻鬲賲乇 丕賱乇丨賱丞 賲毓 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丕鬲 ......廿賱賶 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷
_______________________________
V
VI
噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賷丨賰賲賴丕 賮賷賱爻賵賮 '禺賷丕賱賷'貙 賵爻購賰賻賾丕賳賴丕 乇噩丕賱 丌賱賷賷賳
* **** ** * ** **** *
鬲賳賯爻賲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 廿賱丕 毓卮乇丞 兀噩夭丕亍貙 兀賵 賰賲丕 丕爻賲丕賴丕 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 毓卮乇丞 賰鬲亘貙 賰賱 賰鬲丕亘 賷禺鬲氐 亘賲賵囟賵毓 賲毓賷賳 賷乇鬲亘胤 亘賲丕 爻亘賯賴 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕賸 賵孬賷賯丕賸 賵賲賰賲賱丕賸 賱賴 亘鬲賵爻毓貙 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 賷鬲丨丕賵乇 賮賷賴丕 "爻賯乇丕胤" 賲毓 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐
賲丕 賴賵 丕賱毓丿賱責 賵賴賱 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱毓丕丿賱 卮禺氐 爻毓賷丿 賳鬲賷噩丞 賱毓丿賱賴 賵丕賱馗丕賱賲 鬲毓賷爻 賱馗賱賲丞責! 賲賳 賴賳丕 鬲賳胤賱賯 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 賵賷鬲丿乇噩 爻賯乇丕胤 賲毓 賲丨丕賵乇賷賴 賮賷賴丕 氐毓賵丿丕賸 賵鬲賵爻毓丕賸 賱賷氐賱 廿賱賶 賲丿賷賳鬲賴 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞
爻賯乇丕胤 賲丨丕賵乇 "賲爻鬲賮夭" 賮賰乇賷丕賸 賵賴匕丕 賱賷爻 亘丕賱睾乇賷亘 賱胤亘賷毓鬲賴 "丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞"貙 鬲亘丿兀 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘噩丿丕賱 賯賵賷 亘賷賳賴 賵亘賷賳 賲丨丕賵乇賷賴 賵賱賰賳 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 賷爻鬲賱賲 爻賯乇丕胤 賵丨丿賴 丿賮丞 胤乇丨 丕賱爻丐丕賱 賵丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴 賵賷賯鬲氐乇 丿賵乇 賲丨丕賵乇賷賴 賮賷 丕賱孬賳丕亍貙 賵丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿貙 賵廿毓丕丿丞 爻丐丕賱賴 賲乇賴 兀禺乇賶 賵賳丕丿乇丕賸 賲丕 賷鬲丿禺賱 卮禺氐 亘爻丐丕賱 賷賯賱亘 丿賮丞 丕賱丨賵丕乇. 賴匕丕 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賷爻 亘丕賱賲丐孬乇 賰孬賷乇丕賸 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 鬲賵賻賾爻毓 丕賱丨賵丕乇 賱毓丿丞 噩賵丕賳亘 賲賳 丕賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱賲胤乇賵丨丞 賮爻賯乇丕胤 亘胤亘賷毓丞 丨賵丕乇賴 賷噩丕丿賱 賳賮爻賴 亘賳賮爻賴 賵賴賳丕 鬲賰賲賳 丕賱賲鬲毓丞貙 賮賲丕 兀賳 賳乇鬲丕丨 賱賮賰乇丞 丨鬲賶 賷賯賱亘賴丕 乇兀爻丕賸 毓賱賶 毓賯亘 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶
兀乇丿鬲 賰鬲丕亘丞 賲禺鬲氐乇 卮丿賷丿 賱鬲賯爻賷賲 丕賱賰鬲亘 賱廿毓胤丕亍 賮賰乇丞 賱賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 毓賳 胤亘賷毓丞 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賯爻丕賲 賵丕丨鬲乇鬲 賵賱賲 鬲胤賵賱 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷乇丞貙 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賱賲賯丿賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀丐噩賱賴丕 丿丕卅賲丕 賱丨賷賳 丕賱丕賳鬲賴丕亍 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘. 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯爻賻賾賲 賰丕賱丌鬲賷*:-
丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶: 毓賳 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賵鬲毓乇賷賮賴丕 賵毓賳 賰賵賳賴丕 兀爻丕爻 賱賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱乇丕亘毓 毓賳 賴賷賰賱賷丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賵賰賷賮 賷噩亘 亘賳丕丐賴丕
丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞: 丕賱禺丕賲爻 賵丕賱爻丕丿爻 賵丕賱爻丕亘毓 賵氐賱鬲 賮賷賴丕 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 廿賱賶 兀毓賱賶 賯賲賲賴丕
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱孬丕賲賳 賵丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓賳 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱丨購賰賲 亘氐賮賴 毓丕賲丞 賵賳賮爻賷丞 賲賳 賷乇卅爻賴丕
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱毓丕卮乇: 丕爻鬲賳鬲丕噩 卮丕賲賱 賱賲丕 爻亘賯貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱卮毓乇 賵賳賵毓賴 賮賷 '丕賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞'貙 賵賲爻兀賱丞 兀賳 丕賱亘丿賳 賷賮賳賶 賵丕賱乇賵丨 鬲亘賯賶 禺丕賱丿丞
* **** ** * ** **** *
賰卮禺氐賷賴 鬲毓卮賯 丕賱賰賲丕賱 賰丕賳鬲 兀賰孬乇 丕賱兀噩夭丕亍 賲鬲毓丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱禺丕賲爻 賵丕賱爻丕丿爻 賵丕賱爻丕亘毓貙 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 禺氐賵氐丕賸 '丕賱爻丕亘毓'. 賷丕 廿賱賴賷 賰賲 丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘賴貙 賵賲丕 亘賴 賲賳 丨賵丕乇 賷亘鬲丿卅 亘賯氐丞 '丕賱賰賴賮' 賵賷賳胤賱賯 亘賴丕 賱賷氐賱 廿賱賶 "鬲乇賳賷賲丞 毓賱賲 丕賱噩丿賱 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 兀氐賱 賷禺鬲氐 亘賴 丕賱兀賱賲毓賷 賮賯胤貙 賮丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲丿購乇賰 賴賵 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱噩丿賱賷 毓賱賶 丕賱丿賵丕賲*". 賯氐丞 丕賱賰賴賮 胤賵賷賱丞 賳賵毓丕賸 賲丕 賵賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕禺鬲氐丕乇賴丕 賴賳丕 爻鬲氐賷亘賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賲賯鬲賱 賵 鬲賮乇睾賴丕 賲賳 噩丕賳亘賴丕 丕賱兀賴賲 兀賱丕 賵賴賵 丕賱鬲爻賱爻賱 丕賱鬲氐丕毓丿賷 賱賮賰乇丞 賮賱爻賮賷丞 噩賲丕賱賴丕 賵賯賵鬲賴丕 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱氐毓賵丿 丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩賷 丿乇噩丞 丿乇噩丞
* **** ** * ** **** *
賱賵 兀乇丿鬲 鬲賯爻賷賲 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賱孬賱丕孬 兀賯爻丕賲 乇卅賷爻賷丞 賮廿賳賷 爻兀禺鬲氐乇 賲丨鬲賵丕賴丕 賰丕賱丌鬲賷:-
爻賷丕爻賷丕賸:- 氐丨賷丨 兀賳 丕賱賰賲丕賱 賷購賲鬲賽毓賿賳賽賷 賵丿丕卅賲丕賸 賲丕 兀爻毓賶 賱賴 賵賱賰賳賷 卮禺氐賷丞 賵丕賯毓賷丞 賱丿乇噩丞 丕賱廿夭毓丕噩 賵兀丿乇賰 兀賳賴 睾丕賷丞 賱丕 鬲購丿乇賰貙 賵賴匕賴 兀亘乇夭 賲卮丕賰賱 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 兀賯氐丿 丕賱亘毓丿 毓賳 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞
賷賯賵賱 '賰賱賵賰賱賵賳' 兀丨丿 賲丨丕賵乇賷 爻賯乇丕胤 賱賴:- [廿賳賰 賳丨賻賾丕鬲賹貙 賷丕 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賱賯丿 氐賳毓鬲 賱丨賰丕賲賳丕 鬲賲丕孬賷賱 丌賷丞賸 賮賷 丕賱噩賲丕賱]
賲毓 兀賳 丕賱噩賲賱丞 噩丕亍鬲 鬲毓亘賷乇丕賸 毓賳 丕賱廿毓噩丕亘 丕賱賰亘賷乇 亘賲丕 賯丕賱賴 爻賯乇丕胤 賵鬲兀賷賷丿賴 賵賱賰賳賷 賵噩丿鬲賴丕 鬲毓亘賷乇丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賯氐賵乇 賮賷 賮毓丕賱賷丞 丕賱賮賰乇丞. 賮毓賱丕賸 賴賲 賰賲丕 賵氐賮賴賲 賰賱賵賰賱賵賳 亘丕賱鬲賲丕孬賷賱貙 兀卮禺丕氐 賲賳 毓丕賱賲 丕賱禺賷丕賱 賷賲鬲丕夭賵賳 亘丕賱賰賲丕賱 丕賱賲胤賱賯 丕賱匕賷 兀乇賶 兀賳賴 睾丕賷丞 賱丕 鬲丿乇賰 賵賵丕賯毓 賲賳 丕賱賲爻鬲丨賷賱 鬲丨賯賷賯賴
丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸:- 賴賷 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賴丕 丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷 丕賱匕賷 兀噩丿賴 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 馗丕賱賲 賵 丕賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀爻丕爻賴丕 丕賱毓丿賱 賰賲丕 賮賴賲鬲責!!
丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丕賸:-賴賳丕 丕賱毓噩亘 丕賱毓噩丕亘貙 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賳賮丕乇 丕賱卮丿賷丿 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱丕 兀毓乇賮 賰賷賮 丕禺鬲氐乇 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 亘賰賱賲丞 賵賱賰賳 爻兀賳賯賱 噩賲賱丞 賰鬲亘鬲賴丕 賰孬賷乇丕賸 毓賱賶 氐賮丨丕鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲毓胤賷 氐賵乇丞 賵丕囟丨丞貙 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丕賸 賴賷 兀卮亘賴 {亘夭乇賷亘丞 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲} 兀賰乇賲賰賲 丕賱賱賴貙 賮賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賲禺鬲賱 噩丿丕賸 賵賷卮鬲乇賰 賲毓 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賲賳 噩賴丞 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞貙 賮賱賰賲 兀賳 鬲鬲禺賷賱賵丕 賲丕 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿
賴賳丕 賷噩亘 匕賰乇 賳賯胤丞 賱賱廿賳氐丕賮 賵賴賷 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱夭賲賳 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 賵囟毓 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賮賷賴貙 毓賳丿賷 賮賰乇丞 毓賳 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 爻丕亘賯丕賸 賲賳 賯乇丕亍鬲賷 賱賰鬲丕亘賷賳 毓賳 兀乇爻胤賵 賵兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴賲 亘丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱廿賲丕賲 毓亘丿 丕賱賮鬲丕丨 廿賲丕賲 賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯亘丞 賲賳 丕賱夭賲賳. 賱賰賳 丨賱 爻賯乇丕胤 噩丕亍 亘丕賳 賷賳鬲賯賱 亘丕賱賲乇兀丞 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 '丕賱丨乇丞' 賲賳 馗賱丕賲 丕賱丨購賮乇 廿賱賶 丕賱噩賴丞 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賲賳 丕賱鬲胤乇賮 賵兀賯氐丿 亘兀賳 爻丕賵丕賴丕 亘丕賱乇噩賱 賱丿乇噩丞 兀賳 賷氐亘丨 丕賱鬲毓乇賷 兀賲丕 丕賱賲賱兀 兀孬賳丕亍 丕賱鬲賲丕乇賷賳 丕賱乇賷丕囟賷丞 賵丕賱賲爻丕亘賯丕鬲 丕賱賯鬲丕賱賷丞 兀爻賵丞 亘丕賱乇噩丕賱 卮賷亍 胤亘賷毓賷 賵賲賳 賷噩丿 賮賷賴 毓賱丞 賵禺氐賵氐丕賸 賲賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賮廿賳 丕賱毓賱丞 賵丕賱禺胤兀 兀爻丕爻賴丕 賮賷 賳賮爻賴 丕賱賲乇賷囟丞 (丌賱賷賷賳). 賵賱賰賳 賷丨爻亘 賱賴 兀賳賴 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀賵賱 賲賳 丿毓丕 賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 兀爻賵丞 亘丕賱乇噩賱
* **** ** * ** **** *
丕賱鬲毓乇賷噩 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丕胤:-
#賯爻賸賲 爻賯乇丕胤 丕賱丿賵賱 (亘丕賱毓賲賵賲 亘毓賷丿丕賸 毓賳 噩賲賴賵乇賷鬲賴) 賱禺賲爻丞 兀賳賵丕毓:-
1. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱兀賮囟賱
2. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱鬲賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱卮乇賮
3. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賷睾丕乇賰賷賻賾丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱兀睾賳賷丕亍
4. 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱卮毓亘
5. 丕賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿賷丞:- 丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賱賵丕丨丿
賵賱賰賲 兀賳 鬲鬲禺賷賱賵丕 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲乇鬲賷亘 鬲氐丕毓丿賷丕賸 賴賵 賲賯賷丕爻 丕賱賮爻丕丿貙 賱賲 丕爻鬲睾乇亘 胤乇丨丞 丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩賷 賱賱兀賳賵丕毓 賵氐賮丕鬲 丨丕賰賲賷賴丕 賵賳賮爻賷鬲賴賲 賵賱賰賳 丕爻鬲睾乇丕亘賷 丕賱兀卮丿 賴賵 賵氐賮丞 賱賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賵賲爻丕賵卅賴丕貙 兀賷 賳毓賲 兀賳賴丕 睾賷乇 賲賳夭賴丞 毓賳 丕賱禺胤兀 賵賱賰賳賴丕 鬲毓鬲亘乇 兀賯賱 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 卮乇丕賸 賮賷 賳馗乇賷貙 賲毓 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀賰孬乇 丕鬲囟丨鬲 賮賰乇丞 賲丕 賷乇賲賷 賱賴. 爻賯乇丕胤 賷毓鬲亘乇 兀賳 賴匕賴 丕賱丿賵賱丞 "丕賱兀毓馗賲 鬲賳賵毓丕賸 賱賱胤亘丕卅毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賮乇丿 賷賰賵賳 賯丕丿乇丕賸 兀賳 賷賳馗賲 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賰賲丕 賷乇賷丿 賱兀賳賴丕 丿賵賱丞 兀爻丕爻賴丕 丕賱丨乇賷丞*"貙 廿賱賶 丕賱丌賳 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賲卮賰賱丞 毓賱賶 賲丕 兀毓鬲賯丿 賵賱賰賳 賱賱毓賱賲 鬲毓乇賷賮 爻賯乇丕胤 賱賱丨乇賷丞 賴賵 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賷 匕賲賽賾賴 賱賴丕 賵胤乇丨賴 丕賱睾乇賷亘 賱賱賲賵囟賵毓
丕賱丨乇賷丞 亘兀賳 鬲賮毓賱 賲丕 鬲卮丕亍 胤丕賱賲丕 兀賳賰 賱賳 鬲丐匕賷 兀丨丿 兀賵 鬲賳鬲賴賰 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲鬲賮賯 毓賱賷賴丕 賴匕丕 賲鬲賮賯 毓賱賷賴貙 賱賰賳 爻賯乇丕胤 兀爻丕爻 胤乇丨賴 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賴賷 兀賳 鬲賮毓賱 賲丕 鬲卮丕亍 賵賱丕 鬲亘丕賱賷 亘兀丨丿 賮兀賳鬲 丨乇 賵兀賯鬲亘爻 賴賳丕 兀賰孬乇 丕賱兀賲賵乇 鬲胤乇賮丕賸 [ 賵賷噩亘 兀賳 兀囟賷賮 兀賳 賱丕 兀丨丿 賲賲賳 賱丕 賷毓乇賮 爻賷氐丿賯 賰賷賮 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱丿賶 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 鬲丨鬲 爻賷丕丿丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳. 廿賳賴丕 爻鬲賰賵賳 兀毓馗賲 亘賰孬賷乇 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 兀賷賻賾丞 丿賵賱丞 兀禺乇賶 賱兀賳賴 賷丨賯 丕賱賯賵賱: "賴賷 丕賱賰賱丕亘貙 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 丕賱賲孬賱貙 賴賷 乇亘賻賾丞 亘賷鬲賴丕". 賵鬲賲鬲賱賰 丕賱兀丨氐賳丞 賵丕賱丨賲賷乇 胤乇賷賯丞 賱賱爻賷乇 賮賷 賲賵丕夭丕丞 賲毓 賰賱 丕賱丨賯賵賯 賵丕賱噩賱丕賱 賱賱乇噩賱 丕賱丨乇賾 賵爻鬲丿賴爻 兀賷 卮禺氐 賲賲賳 賷兀鬲賷 賮賷 胤乇賷賯賴丕 廿匕丕 賱賲 鬲購禺賱賻 賱賴丕 丕賱胤乇賷賯. 廿賳 賰賱 卮賷亍 噩丕賴夭 賱賷鬲賮噩乇 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 亘丕賱丨乇賷丞] ... '毓噩亘賷' 賷丕 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賷丕 爻賯乇丕胤!!! 毓賱賶 乇兀賷 氐賱丕丨 噩丕賴賷賳
# 賮賷 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賴賳丕賰 鬲賰鬲賷賰 丨丕夭賲 丨鬲賶 鬲賳噩丨 丕賱禺胤丞貙 賲賳 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲亘丕丨 賵丕賱睾賷乇 賲亘丕丨 賵鬲氐賳賷賮 丕賱爻購賾賰丕賳 丨爻亘 胤亘賷毓鬲賴賲 賵鬲噩賴賷夭賴賲 亘丿賳賷丕賸 賵毓賯賱賷丕賸 賱賲賴丕賲賴賲. 噩賲賷賱 賰賱 賲丕 匕賰乇賴 賵賱賰賳賴 賷鬲賰賱賻賾賲 毓賳 胤亘賷毓丞 亘卮乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 亘胤亘毓賴丕 賱賴丕 卮賵丕匕 賷卮匕賵賳 毓賳 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 賵賱賳 鬲賰鬲賲賱 丕賱氐賵乇丞 丕賱賲胤賱賵亘丞 兀亘丿丕賸 賱賲丕 賷乇賷丿賴. 賵 賱兀賳 卮乇胤 鬲丨賯賯 賲丕 賷乇賷丿 賴賵 賳噩丕丨 丕賱禺胤丞 100%貙 賵氐賮鬲 爻賰賻賾丕賳賴丕 亘丕賱丌賱賷賷賳 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丞 賲乇丕噩毓鬲賷
# 賱賮鬲 丕賳鬲亘丕賴賷 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賲爻賲賵丨 亘賴 賮賷 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 [賱賰賳 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳亘賯賶 孬丕亘鬲賷賳 賮賷 丨賰賲賳丕 兀賳 丕賱鬲乇丕賳賷賲 廿賱賶 丕賱丌賱賴丞 賵 丕賱孬賳丕亍丕鬲 賱賱乇噩丕賱 丕賱卮賴賷乇賷賳 丕賱賮丕囟賱賷賳貙 賴賷 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷噩亘 兀賳 賳賯亘賱賴 賮賷 丿賵賱鬲賳丕. 賱兀賳賰 廿匕丕 鬲禺胤賻賾賷鬲 匕賱賰 賵爻賲丨鬲 賱毓乇賵爻 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賲毓爻賵賱丞 兀賳 鬲丿禺賱貙 廿賲丕 賮賷 賲賯丕胤毓 卮毓乇 丕賱亘胤賵賱丞 兀賵 丕賱卮毓乇 丕賱賵噩丿丕賳賷 丕賱睾賳丕卅賷貙 亘丿賱丕賸 賲賳 丿禺賵賱 丕賱賯丕賳賵賳 賵毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇 丕賱匕賷 丕毓鬲購亘賽乇賻 丕賱兀賮囟賱 毓賱賶 丕賱丿賵丕賲 亘丕賱乇賽賾囟丕 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰貙 賮賱賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱丨賰賾丕賲 賮賷 丿賵賱鬲賳丕 爻賵賶 丕賱賱匕丞 賵丕賱兀賱賲]
# 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻賷賰賵賳 賲鬲毓丞 亘賱丕 丨丿賵丿 賱賲賳 賷賴賵賶 丕賱鬲毓乇囟 賱賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 亘噩丿賱賷丞 賵亘賲爻賲賷賾丕鬲 賵賳馗乇賷丕鬲 兀囟賲賳 亘爻賲丕毓賴丕 賱兀賵賱 賲乇丞 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 賱鬲賮氐賷氐 賱賱賮賰乇丞 賱毓丿丞 兀噩夭丕亍 賵丕賱禺賵氐 賮賷 鬲賮丕氐賷賱賴丕
#賱丕 兀毓乇賮 賱賲丕匕丕 兀丨爻爻鬲 兀賳 爻賯乇丕胤 賱賵 毓丕氐乇 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 賱兀爻賱賲 賮賵乇丕賸
# 賯乇兀鬲 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘鬲乇噩賲丞 噩賷丿丞 噩丿丕賸 賱卮賵賯賷 丿丕賵丿 鬲賲乇丕夭
# 賱賲丕匕丕 孬賱丕孬 賳噩賵賲責! 禺賲爻 賳噩賵賲 賱賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 賵賳噩賲丞 賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳
#兀禺賷乇丕賸 賴賱 兀噩乇丐 毓賱賶 丕賱賯賵賱 賷丕 鬲乇賶 兀賳賷 兀鬲賲賳賶 兀賳 賱丕 兀賰賵賳 賯丿 賳爻賷鬲 卮賷卅丕賸責
* **** ** * ** **** *
鈥� 賲丕 亘賷賳 "...*" 賲賯鬲亘爻 亘鬲氐乇賮
鈥� 賲丕 亘賷賳 [...] 賲賯鬲亘爻
鈥� 賵鬲爻鬲賲乇 丕賱乇丨賱丞 賲毓 丕賱賲丨丕賵乇丕鬲 ......廿賱賶 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷
_______________________________
V
VI
March 30, 2023
I finished reading THE REPUBLIC for the second time just now. It is arguably the second most influential book in the western canon. We all should study it.
Allan Bloom's translation is a good one -- I am told by reliable sources -- and his interpretive essay is not to be missed. (I read the essay as it appeared in the 1968 edition.) But be aware that his interpretation is not a traditional one. For example, compare Bertrand Russell's summary of Plato in his HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. So don't be confused if Bloom's essay feels unfamiliar or seems to contradict other things that you may have learned or read about Plato.
After a second reading, more than forty years after the first, I am still uncertain when/whether Plato is writing esoterically. But I don't think it matters. We can decide the merits of the City in Speech for ourselves. And how do we feel about that philosophical, but unattainable regime? (We do not like it, of course. Does it make sense that Plato would have intended this? Should we score one for esoteric writing there?)
What about the timocracy devoted to honor that it will decay into? Followed by oligarchy where wealth is valued above all else? Then unruly democracy? And finally tyranny?
I read THE REPUBLIC this last time in a reading group. That's the best way to read it, I think. It was written to be discussed and puzzled over. And we did.
Allan Bloom's translation is a good one -- I am told by reliable sources -- and his interpretive essay is not to be missed. (I read the essay as it appeared in the 1968 edition.) But be aware that his interpretation is not a traditional one. For example, compare Bertrand Russell's summary of Plato in his HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY. So don't be confused if Bloom's essay feels unfamiliar or seems to contradict other things that you may have learned or read about Plato.
After a second reading, more than forty years after the first, I am still uncertain when/whether Plato is writing esoterically. But I don't think it matters. We can decide the merits of the City in Speech for ourselves. And how do we feel about that philosophical, but unattainable regime? (We do not like it, of course. Does it make sense that Plato would have intended this? Should we score one for esoteric writing there?)
What about the timocracy devoted to honor that it will decay into? Followed by oligarchy where wealth is valued above all else? Then unruly democracy? And finally tyranny?
I read THE REPUBLIC this last time in a reading group. That's the best way to read it, I think. It was written to be discussed and puzzled over. And we did.
September 29, 2021
賷丨賱賲 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱賲丿賷賳丞 丕賱賮丕囟賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻賵丿賴丕 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞 賵丕賱賲孬賱 丕賱毓賱賷丕 .. 賵賷胤乇丨 兀賮賰丕乇賴 賮賷 氐賵乇丞 丨賵丕乇 賲毓 賲毓賱賲賴 爻賯乇丕胤 丕賱匕賷 賲孬賱 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 丕賱賲丨賵乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 ..
賷亘丿兀 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賰鬲丕亘賴 亘鬲毓乇賷賮 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賵賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕 賱丿賶 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱丿賵賱丞 .. 賵賷乇賶 兀賳賴丕 賮囟賷賱丞 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲胤賱亘 賱匕丕鬲賴丕 賵賱賷爻 賱賱賲賳丕賮毓 丕賱賲鬲乇鬲亘丞 毓賱賷賴丕 .. 孬賲 賯爻賲 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 廿賱賶 孬賱丕孬 胤亘賯丕鬲 .. 胤亘賯丞 丕賱丨賰丕賲 賵鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱毓賱賲 賵丕賱丨賰賲丞 .. 賵胤亘賯丞 丕賱噩賷卮 兀賵 丕賱丨乇丕爻 賵鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 .. 賵胤亘賯丞 丕賱毓賲丕賱 賵鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘賯賵丞 丕賱鬲丨賲賱 賵丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 .. 賵賮賷 乇兀賷賴 兀賳 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賷鬲丨賯賯 毓賳丿賲丕 賷毓賲賱 賰賱 卮禺氐 賮賷 胤亘賯鬲賴 賮賱丕 賷鬲毓丿丕賴丕 廿賱賶 胤亘賯丞 兀禺乇賶 .. 兀賷 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 賮賷 丕賱賲賰丕賳 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 ..
孬賲 兀賰丿 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 毓賱賶 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱爻賱賷賲丞 賱賱賳卮亍 貙 爻賵丕亍 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱亘丿賳賷丞 兀賵 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱乇賵丨賷丞 毓賱賶 鬲匕賵賯 丕賱賮賳 賵丕賱卮毓乇 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 ..听 賵毓賱賶 賲亘丿兀 丕賱賲爻丕賵丕丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賵丕賱賳爻丕亍 賮賷 賮乇氐 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賵丕賱毓賲賱 .. 賵丿毓丕 廿賱賶 賲卮丕乇賰丞 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱乇噩賱 賮賷 丕賱丨乇賵亘 賵丕賱鬲丿乇賷亘丕鬲 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷丞 亘賱 賵賮賷 丕賱丨賰賲 兀賷囟丕 .. 兀賲丕 兀睾乇亘 丌乇丕卅賴 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱賲乇兀丞 賮賴賵 賵噩賵亘 卮賷賵毓賷丞 丕賱賳爻丕亍 賵丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 胤亘賯丞 丕賱丨乇丕爻 賮賱丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賲乇兀丞 夭賵噩丞 賱乇噩賱 亘毓賷賳賴 賵賱丕 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 兀亘賳丕亍 賱兀亘 亘毓賷賳賴 !!
賵乇兀賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賳 丕賱丨賰丕賲 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷賰賵賳賵丕 賮賱丕爻賮丞 .. 賵兀賳 賷鬲賯賳賵丕 毓賱賵賲 丕賱丨爻丕亘 賵丕賱賴賳丿爻丞 賵丕賱賮賱賰 .. 賵兀賳 賷鬲氐賮賵丕 亘丕賱丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 賵賯賵丞 丕賱丨噩丞 .. 孬賲 毓乇囟 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賵禺氐丕卅氐 賰賱 賲賳賴丕 賵毓賵丕賲賱 廿賳賴賷丕乇賴丕 .. 賰賲丕 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丨賰賲 丕賱胤丕睾賷丞 賵賲爻丕賵卅賴 ..
丌乇丕亍 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 貙 亘乇睾賲 兀賳賴丕 鬲毓賵丿 廿賱賶 賳丨賵 兀乇亘毓丞 賯乇賵賳 賯亘賱 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿 貙 賵亘乇睾賲 兀賳 亘毓囟賴丕 睾乇賷亘 賵賲爻鬲賴噩賳 貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 兀睾賱亘賴丕 丌乇丕亍 丨賰賷賲丞 賵賲鬲夭賳丞 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱氐丕賱丨 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 丕賱丨賲賷丿丞 賵鬲氐賱丨 賱鬲胤亘賷賯賴丕 賵丕賱廿爻鬲乇卮丕丿 亘賴丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 ..
.
賷亘丿兀 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賰鬲丕亘賴 亘鬲毓乇賷賮 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賵賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕 賱丿賶 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱丿賵賱丞 .. 賵賷乇賶 兀賳賴丕 賮囟賷賱丞 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲胤賱亘 賱匕丕鬲賴丕 賵賱賷爻 賱賱賲賳丕賮毓 丕賱賲鬲乇鬲亘丞 毓賱賷賴丕 .. 孬賲 賯爻賲 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 廿賱賶 孬賱丕孬 胤亘賯丕鬲 .. 胤亘賯丞 丕賱丨賰丕賲 賵鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱毓賱賲 賵丕賱丨賰賲丞 .. 賵胤亘賯丞 丕賱噩賷卮 兀賵 丕賱丨乇丕爻 賵鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 .. 賵胤亘賯丞 丕賱毓賲丕賱 賵鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘賯賵丞 丕賱鬲丨賲賱 賵丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩 .. 賵賮賷 乇兀賷賴 兀賳 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賷鬲丨賯賯 毓賳丿賲丕 賷毓賲賱 賰賱 卮禺氐 賮賷 胤亘賯鬲賴 賮賱丕 賷鬲毓丿丕賴丕 廿賱賶 胤亘賯丞 兀禺乇賶 .. 兀賷 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱卮禺氐 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 賮賷 丕賱賲賰丕賳 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 ..
孬賲 兀賰丿 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 毓賱賶 兀賴賲賷丞 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱爻賱賷賲丞 賱賱賳卮亍 貙 爻賵丕亍 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱亘丿賳賷丞 兀賵 丕賱鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱乇賵丨賷丞 毓賱賶 鬲匕賵賯 丕賱賮賳 賵丕賱卮毓乇 賵丕賱賲賵爻賷賯賶 ..听 賵毓賱賶 賲亘丿兀 丕賱賲爻丕賵丕丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賵丕賱賳爻丕亍 賮賷 賮乇氐 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賵丕賱毓賲賱 .. 賵丿毓丕 廿賱賶 賲卮丕乇賰丞 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱乇噩賱 賮賷 丕賱丨乇賵亘 賵丕賱鬲丿乇賷亘丕鬲 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷丞 亘賱 賵賮賷 丕賱丨賰賲 兀賷囟丕 .. 兀賲丕 兀睾乇亘 丌乇丕卅賴 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱賲乇兀丞 賮賴賵 賵噩賵亘 卮賷賵毓賷丞 丕賱賳爻丕亍 賵丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 胤亘賯丞 丕賱丨乇丕爻 賮賱丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賲乇兀丞 夭賵噩丞 賱乇噩賱 亘毓賷賳賴 賵賱丕 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 兀亘賳丕亍 賱兀亘 亘毓賷賳賴 !!
賵乇兀賶 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賳 丕賱丨賰丕賲 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷賰賵賳賵丕 賮賱丕爻賮丞 .. 賵兀賳 賷鬲賯賳賵丕 毓賱賵賲 丕賱丨爻丕亘 賵丕賱賴賳丿爻丞 賵丕賱賮賱賰 .. 賵兀賳 賷鬲氐賮賵丕 亘丕賱丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 賵賯賵丞 丕賱丨噩丞 .. 孬賲 毓乇囟 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賵禺氐丕卅氐 賰賱 賲賳賴丕 賵毓賵丕賲賱 廿賳賴賷丕乇賴丕 .. 賰賲丕 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丨賰賲 丕賱胤丕睾賷丞 賵賲爻丕賵卅賴 ..
丌乇丕亍 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 貙 亘乇睾賲 兀賳賴丕 鬲毓賵丿 廿賱賶 賳丨賵 兀乇亘毓丞 賯乇賵賳 賯亘賱 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿 貙 賵亘乇睾賲 兀賳 亘毓囟賴丕 睾乇賷亘 賵賲爻鬲賴噩賳 貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 兀睾賱亘賴丕 丌乇丕亍 丨賰賷賲丞 賵賲鬲夭賳丞 鬲鬲賮賯 賲毓 丕賱氐丕賱丨 丕賱毓丕賲 賵丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 丕賱丨賲賷丿丞 賵鬲氐賱丨 賱鬲胤亘賷賯賴丕 賵丕賱廿爻鬲乇卮丕丿 亘賴丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 ..
.
October 11, 2015
Theorising the Perfect State
21 October 2013
Sometimes I wonder if people give this book five stars because it is either a) written by Plato, or b) if you don't give it five stars then you are afraid that people will think that you are some semi-literate mindless cretin whose reading capacity tends to extend little beyond the Harry Potter and Twilight Series. Yes, I realise that I have given it five stars, but I have given it five stars because I actually enjoyed the argument that this book outlines. Basically it is a very logical argument that examines the nature of the human soul and of justice and the structure of the argument is of the sort that you could only expect to see from a master. Mind you, some of the points that Plato makes, such as physicians role being only to maintain the health of society and not to heal or care for the sick or injured (thus simply letting them die) would be repugnant not only to us (to an extent) but also to the people of his day. However it is the way that the argument flows, and the way that Plato explores concepts that are relevant even to us today that makes me think highly of this work of literature.
First of all, let us consider the context of the book. This was written after the death of Socrates which meant that the democratic model that Athens had been based upon had failed, and this it was quite clear to Plato and his contemporaries that democracy had failed. As such, when writing about the perfect society, one could not write about a democracy, and if one did, one needed to outline how the previous experiment failed and how it could be improved. This is the case today with socialists examining how the Russian experiment failed, but seeking to build upon its ideals to create a government that will avoid those mistakes. However, in Plato's mind, this could not happen simply because he knew that the basic foundations of the democratic state could not support a functioning ideal government. The main reason for that is that, like our democratic system, the power brokers not only tended to be rich, but also very well spoken, meaning that the populace could easily be swayed and end up supporting the power-brokers flawed, and in many cases self-centered, policies.
However, while many consider that the Republic is about an idea of how to construct a perfect state, the treatise itself goes far beyond that because what it is actually looking at is the idea of perfect justice. Near the end of the treatise Plato once again outlines his theory of forms, which is that everything in this world his a pale reflection of the object's perfect form. For instance, all tables that we see are a reflection of a perfect table, and as tables can only be created by people who make tables, and because all table makers are different, it is thus impossible to create the perfect form of a table. However to help us understand this concept further, Plato brings out the idea of art. A painting of a table is a mere reflection of the table that is painted, and every painting of that table will be different and no painter is able to paint that table as it truly is 鈥� the painter is basically restrained by the medium of which the painter creates the table. The same goes with poetry, because the poet is only able to create a pale reflection of the event that the poet is writing the poem about, and no poet, through the medium of poetry, is able to create a perfect reflection of that event.
Thus, what Plato is doing is he is applying his theory to that of government. Thus every government is a reflection of the perfect government, and no government can replicate the perfect form of government. Further still, being a philosopher, Plato is restrained from being able to describe exactly what that perfect government is because he is restrained by the medium of which is uses to outline what he believes the perfect form of government is. That, by the way, is very important - what he believes the perfect form of government to be. The major restraint that Plato faces in outlining the perfect form is that it is his opinion, and his opinion is quite possibly wrong.
However, let us consider what this government is. First of all, it is not a democracy, and has no democratic institutions. The government is a oligarchic state which is ruled by philosophers, with the philosopher king at the top of the chain. It is also a very stratified form of government, with three castes, namely the ruling caste, the warrior caste (known as the Guardians), and the working caste. We must remember also that there is no room for anybody who cannot fit into any of these castes, thus the sick, injured, or disabled, have no part in this society because they are not able to fulfil any meaningful role within the state. However your caste his not determined by your birth, which means that just because you are born to working class parents does not mean you are automatically a part of the working class, and as such, just because you are born among the ruling class does not mean you are automatically members of the ruling class.
A few further points that I note is that Plato endorses religion in his state, but this is not surprising considering the Greeks were very religious people. However, Plato does not see a need to comment on religion, and while it is the case that there were philosophers who were atheists, Plato, nor his teacher Socrates, were one of them. Plato also does not support the idea of family, and actually believes that it should be abolished (though he does support monogamous marriage). I suspect that is this because the family unit tends to be a very tight unit, and if allowed in such a stratified society, having a family unit would mean that the idea of a person being a member of a specific class based on skill would fall apart as the members of a family in a specific class would not allow their children to fall down to a lower class.
Plato also believes in the abolition of wealth and property, which means that his state is a socialist state. Once again this is not surprising considering that most dictatorships tend to have the wealth concentrated at the top, with the rulers effectively being the progenitors of a kelptocracy. However, it is also the case in the democracies where wealth creates privilege, and privilege creates power. Just as it is today, the wealthy of fifth century Athens were able to buy the best minds to write their arguments and promote their policies to the detriment of the poorer classes. A democracy could quite well also be considered a form of kleptocracy.
Finally, Plato advocates censorship, particularly in education. He indicates that there are some things that should not be taught to our young for fear that our young may not understand what is being taught. This is very much the case today because there is a form of censorship that is basically accepted, and that is the rating systems for our movies, and now for our computer games. One cannot release a movie in an advanced democracy without getting the approval of the ratings agency. Further, studios will purposely self censor a movie so that it will receive a certain rating so that more people will go and see it and will be willing to see it.
21 October 2013
Sometimes I wonder if people give this book five stars because it is either a) written by Plato, or b) if you don't give it five stars then you are afraid that people will think that you are some semi-literate mindless cretin whose reading capacity tends to extend little beyond the Harry Potter and Twilight Series. Yes, I realise that I have given it five stars, but I have given it five stars because I actually enjoyed the argument that this book outlines. Basically it is a very logical argument that examines the nature of the human soul and of justice and the structure of the argument is of the sort that you could only expect to see from a master. Mind you, some of the points that Plato makes, such as physicians role being only to maintain the health of society and not to heal or care for the sick or injured (thus simply letting them die) would be repugnant not only to us (to an extent) but also to the people of his day. However it is the way that the argument flows, and the way that Plato explores concepts that are relevant even to us today that makes me think highly of this work of literature.
First of all, let us consider the context of the book. This was written after the death of Socrates which meant that the democratic model that Athens had been based upon had failed, and this it was quite clear to Plato and his contemporaries that democracy had failed. As such, when writing about the perfect society, one could not write about a democracy, and if one did, one needed to outline how the previous experiment failed and how it could be improved. This is the case today with socialists examining how the Russian experiment failed, but seeking to build upon its ideals to create a government that will avoid those mistakes. However, in Plato's mind, this could not happen simply because he knew that the basic foundations of the democratic state could not support a functioning ideal government. The main reason for that is that, like our democratic system, the power brokers not only tended to be rich, but also very well spoken, meaning that the populace could easily be swayed and end up supporting the power-brokers flawed, and in many cases self-centered, policies.
However, while many consider that the Republic is about an idea of how to construct a perfect state, the treatise itself goes far beyond that because what it is actually looking at is the idea of perfect justice. Near the end of the treatise Plato once again outlines his theory of forms, which is that everything in this world his a pale reflection of the object's perfect form. For instance, all tables that we see are a reflection of a perfect table, and as tables can only be created by people who make tables, and because all table makers are different, it is thus impossible to create the perfect form of a table. However to help us understand this concept further, Plato brings out the idea of art. A painting of a table is a mere reflection of the table that is painted, and every painting of that table will be different and no painter is able to paint that table as it truly is 鈥� the painter is basically restrained by the medium of which the painter creates the table. The same goes with poetry, because the poet is only able to create a pale reflection of the event that the poet is writing the poem about, and no poet, through the medium of poetry, is able to create a perfect reflection of that event.
Thus, what Plato is doing is he is applying his theory to that of government. Thus every government is a reflection of the perfect government, and no government can replicate the perfect form of government. Further still, being a philosopher, Plato is restrained from being able to describe exactly what that perfect government is because he is restrained by the medium of which is uses to outline what he believes the perfect form of government is. That, by the way, is very important - what he believes the perfect form of government to be. The major restraint that Plato faces in outlining the perfect form is that it is his opinion, and his opinion is quite possibly wrong.
However, let us consider what this government is. First of all, it is not a democracy, and has no democratic institutions. The government is a oligarchic state which is ruled by philosophers, with the philosopher king at the top of the chain. It is also a very stratified form of government, with three castes, namely the ruling caste, the warrior caste (known as the Guardians), and the working caste. We must remember also that there is no room for anybody who cannot fit into any of these castes, thus the sick, injured, or disabled, have no part in this society because they are not able to fulfil any meaningful role within the state. However your caste his not determined by your birth, which means that just because you are born to working class parents does not mean you are automatically a part of the working class, and as such, just because you are born among the ruling class does not mean you are automatically members of the ruling class.
A few further points that I note is that Plato endorses religion in his state, but this is not surprising considering the Greeks were very religious people. However, Plato does not see a need to comment on religion, and while it is the case that there were philosophers who were atheists, Plato, nor his teacher Socrates, were one of them. Plato also does not support the idea of family, and actually believes that it should be abolished (though he does support monogamous marriage). I suspect that is this because the family unit tends to be a very tight unit, and if allowed in such a stratified society, having a family unit would mean that the idea of a person being a member of a specific class based on skill would fall apart as the members of a family in a specific class would not allow their children to fall down to a lower class.
Plato also believes in the abolition of wealth and property, which means that his state is a socialist state. Once again this is not surprising considering that most dictatorships tend to have the wealth concentrated at the top, with the rulers effectively being the progenitors of a kelptocracy. However, it is also the case in the democracies where wealth creates privilege, and privilege creates power. Just as it is today, the wealthy of fifth century Athens were able to buy the best minds to write their arguments and promote their policies to the detriment of the poorer classes. A democracy could quite well also be considered a form of kleptocracy.
Finally, Plato advocates censorship, particularly in education. He indicates that there are some things that should not be taught to our young for fear that our young may not understand what is being taught. This is very much the case today because there is a form of censorship that is basically accepted, and that is the rating systems for our movies, and now for our computer games. One cannot release a movie in an advanced democracy without getting the approval of the ratings agency. Further, studios will purposely self censor a movie so that it will receive a certain rating so that more people will go and see it and will be willing to see it.
Read
May 18, 2017This is my first GR review without a star rating. Here鈥檚 the reason why.
I don鈥檛 like Plato鈥檚 Republic, but I think it ought to be read more than once. I didn鈥檛 like it when I first read it almost 50 years ago, and my opinion hasn鈥檛 changed over the years. Nevertheless, I think it鈥檚 an important book that should be read, analyzed and debated. In that regard, it鈥檚 much like Hitler鈥檚 Mein Kampf. Both books are, in my opinion, prescriptions for tyranny, the two sides of the same counterfeit coin. However, I won't compare Plato to Hitler. I believe Plato meant well, but more of that later.
Hitler was the prime modern example of a populist demagogue who based his 鈥渕ight makes right鈥� ideology on race, blood and soil. 鈥淛ustice,鈥� for Hitler, was grounded on the 鈥渞ight鈥� of the Aryan Superman to dominate and rule those inferior to himself. It followed that oppression, war and genocide could be justified when done in the name of the 鈥淢aster Race鈥� and their 鈥淎ryan Superman Leader.鈥�
Plato despised the populist demagogues of his time, the products of ancient Athenian democracy, most particularly because he blamed them for the unjust death of his mentor, Socrates. Plato argued for a Republic governed by those most fit to rule, the Men and Women of Gold, the philosopher kings and queens. 鈥淛ustice鈥� for Plato, was grounded on the 鈥渞ight鈥� of the 鈥漛est and brightest鈥� to dominate and rule those who were naturally inferior to themselves. The justification for this peculiar form of injustice was that the naturally superior were "experts" who would rule the naturally inferior for their own good. In my opinion it follows that oppression, war and genocide could be justified when done in the name of 鈥淭he City State and the People鈥� by the reigning 鈥淢en and Women of Gold.鈥� In other words, Plato鈥檚 Republic could be an authoritarian hell. If you want to argue that Plato鈥檚 hell was at least well intended, I鈥檇 refer to the old adage about the road paved with good intentions and where that road leads.
Hitler was the rattler who gives a warning before he bites. Plato was subtler. He used the Cave metaphor, an example of his idealistic epistemology, to show how some people have the special insight to see things as they really are, whereas the masses only see things as they appear to be. Therefore, the ignorant masses are always subject to the popular opinion of the moment.
Plato sets up his typical straw man arguments about justice, to get to the definition of justice that he wants: A system where the masses 鈥渕ind their own business鈥� leaving the experts, the 鈥淢en and Women of Gold鈥� i.e. people like Plato, to run things for the common good. 奥丑补迟鈥檚 more, he justifies propaganda in the form of a 鈥淣oble Lie鈥� or "Noble Myth" to convince the masses that they are inferior, by analogy made of baser metal, and must submit to the will of their superiors 鈥渇or their own good.鈥�
I assume H.L Mencken agreed with Plato when he wrote: 鈥淎s democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.鈥� Mencken was writing about U.S. politics in the 1920鈥檚-1930鈥檚. I wonder what he鈥檇 think of U.S. politics today? Plato was writing about Athenian politics, their ancient democracy, and other systems of government 2,500 years ago. I haven't a clue what he'd think of the 21st century.
Plato鈥檚 world is so remote in time and space that we can barely imagine it; Mencken鈥檚 world is still within the memory of the oldest among us, but it鈥檚 still distant and hard for the young to understand. Things change yet much remains the same. Governments are instituted by human beings, and all humans are subject to the same flaws and weaknesses as our ancestors. Imperfect beings will never develop a perfect form of government. Nevertheless, I believe that a Constitutional Republic with democratic processes and a rule of law that guarantees the rights of individuals, and that promotes equality, Abraham Lincoln鈥檚 鈥淕overnment of, by and for the people鈥�, is still about as good as it gets. As for Plato鈥檚 Republic, it鈥檚 a Utopian thought experiment. Government by an ostensibly 鈥渂enign鈥� elite of 鈥渋ntellectuals鈥� and technocrats with little or no respect for individual rights has been tried and found wanting. Robespierre鈥檚 鈥淐ommittee of Public Safety"* is an early modern example of the sort of hell that arises from the 鈥済ood intentions鈥� of Plato and others. Repeating that experiment over and over again while expecting a different result is worse than insane鈥攊t鈥檚 downright evil.
I recommend reading Robespierre's speech The Republic of Virtue (1794) and considering it in light of Plato's Republic, a good test of thought experiment as applied to reality.
I don鈥檛 like Plato鈥檚 Republic, but I think it ought to be read more than once. I didn鈥檛 like it when I first read it almost 50 years ago, and my opinion hasn鈥檛 changed over the years. Nevertheless, I think it鈥檚 an important book that should be read, analyzed and debated. In that regard, it鈥檚 much like Hitler鈥檚 Mein Kampf. Both books are, in my opinion, prescriptions for tyranny, the two sides of the same counterfeit coin. However, I won't compare Plato to Hitler. I believe Plato meant well, but more of that later.
Hitler was the prime modern example of a populist demagogue who based his 鈥渕ight makes right鈥� ideology on race, blood and soil. 鈥淛ustice,鈥� for Hitler, was grounded on the 鈥渞ight鈥� of the Aryan Superman to dominate and rule those inferior to himself. It followed that oppression, war and genocide could be justified when done in the name of the 鈥淢aster Race鈥� and their 鈥淎ryan Superman Leader.鈥�
Plato despised the populist demagogues of his time, the products of ancient Athenian democracy, most particularly because he blamed them for the unjust death of his mentor, Socrates. Plato argued for a Republic governed by those most fit to rule, the Men and Women of Gold, the philosopher kings and queens. 鈥淛ustice鈥� for Plato, was grounded on the 鈥渞ight鈥� of the 鈥漛est and brightest鈥� to dominate and rule those who were naturally inferior to themselves. The justification for this peculiar form of injustice was that the naturally superior were "experts" who would rule the naturally inferior for their own good. In my opinion it follows that oppression, war and genocide could be justified when done in the name of 鈥淭he City State and the People鈥� by the reigning 鈥淢en and Women of Gold.鈥� In other words, Plato鈥檚 Republic could be an authoritarian hell. If you want to argue that Plato鈥檚 hell was at least well intended, I鈥檇 refer to the old adage about the road paved with good intentions and where that road leads.
Hitler was the rattler who gives a warning before he bites. Plato was subtler. He used the Cave metaphor, an example of his idealistic epistemology, to show how some people have the special insight to see things as they really are, whereas the masses only see things as they appear to be. Therefore, the ignorant masses are always subject to the popular opinion of the moment.
Plato sets up his typical straw man arguments about justice, to get to the definition of justice that he wants: A system where the masses 鈥渕ind their own business鈥� leaving the experts, the 鈥淢en and Women of Gold鈥� i.e. people like Plato, to run things for the common good. 奥丑补迟鈥檚 more, he justifies propaganda in the form of a 鈥淣oble Lie鈥� or "Noble Myth" to convince the masses that they are inferior, by analogy made of baser metal, and must submit to the will of their superiors 鈥渇or their own good.鈥�
I assume H.L Mencken agreed with Plato when he wrote: 鈥淎s democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.鈥� Mencken was writing about U.S. politics in the 1920鈥檚-1930鈥檚. I wonder what he鈥檇 think of U.S. politics today? Plato was writing about Athenian politics, their ancient democracy, and other systems of government 2,500 years ago. I haven't a clue what he'd think of the 21st century.
Plato鈥檚 world is so remote in time and space that we can barely imagine it; Mencken鈥檚 world is still within the memory of the oldest among us, but it鈥檚 still distant and hard for the young to understand. Things change yet much remains the same. Governments are instituted by human beings, and all humans are subject to the same flaws and weaknesses as our ancestors. Imperfect beings will never develop a perfect form of government. Nevertheless, I believe that a Constitutional Republic with democratic processes and a rule of law that guarantees the rights of individuals, and that promotes equality, Abraham Lincoln鈥檚 鈥淕overnment of, by and for the people鈥�, is still about as good as it gets. As for Plato鈥檚 Republic, it鈥檚 a Utopian thought experiment. Government by an ostensibly 鈥渂enign鈥� elite of 鈥渋ntellectuals鈥� and technocrats with little or no respect for individual rights has been tried and found wanting. Robespierre鈥檚 鈥淐ommittee of Public Safety"* is an early modern example of the sort of hell that arises from the 鈥済ood intentions鈥� of Plato and others. Repeating that experiment over and over again while expecting a different result is worse than insane鈥攊t鈥檚 downright evil.
I recommend reading Robespierre's speech The Republic of Virtue (1794) and considering it in light of Plato's Republic, a good test of thought experiment as applied to reality.
April 10, 2017
A man, tired from a long day of drudgery at work, walks towards his favourite haunt, an old-fashioned British working class pub in Essex called 'The Griffon'. Drenched from a heavy fall of rain, he enters the building and is greeted by its familiar smells and sounds.
Man: 鈥淓vening, all.鈥� (The patrons demurely acknowledge his presence, and return to their drinks. The face of Roger, a much older man, lights up as he joyously steps towards the newcomer)
Roger: 鈥淣ate, ye bastard! Where have ye been all this time? Stuck in a sheep鈥檚 backside?鈥�(he guffaws, while shaking his friend's hand)
Nate [smiling feebly]: 鈥淓vening, Roger. Oh no, nothing as queer like that. Had some family business to attend to. I also have been busy reading, as a matter of fact..鈥�
Roger: 鈥淩eading? You?鈥�
Nate [feeling slight shame]: 鈥渊别蝉..鈥�
Roger:鈥淒idn鈥檛 peg you as the intellectual type, mate.鈥�
Nate: 鈥淥h, I am not, I can assure you. Let me explain. You know about that particularly nasty storm a forthnight ago?"
Roger:"Aye, the Great Storm of 2017. Already a legend in these parts."
Nate:"Well, I got myself caught in the open street during its peak, and sought shelter in the nearest building. Turned out it was the bloody library! Quite a shock, let me tell you."
Roger: 鈥淩eally? I didn鈥檛 even know we had one! Didn鈥檛 Thatcher close it down back in the eighties? What the hell else did we elect her for?鈥�(he falls prey to a violent fit of laughter, and is soon joined by the others)
(Nate waits until the noise dies down and soberly resumes his tale) "All right, men, in all seriousness now. So here I found myself in that building I had never been in before, and which I couldn鈥檛 wait to leave. But, since the storm didn鈥檛 show any sign of abating, I thought it best to stay put and kill some time browsing. What else鈥檚 a man to do, eh? Well, for some reason I ended up in the philosophy section, and found this book titled the Republic by this fella named Plato. Does that ring a bell with anyone?鈥�
(A stout little man named Edmund enters the conversation) 鈥淧lato? Famous bloke, innit?鈥�
Nate: 鈥淵es, rather. In it he sort of details how society should be run by so-called philosopher kings. Rather strict in his way of approaching it, methinks. Not a lot of freedom, or much fun at all really.鈥�
Roger: 鈥淗mm. Got you to keep flippin' the pages though, no?鈥�
Nate: 鈥淧retty much. The missus always said I was a right philistine, and should get some more culture in my system. The back cover did mention it was 鈥榓 foundational text of Western civilisation鈥�, so I figured I might bloody well start there. I read for an hour or so, and then took it home. First time I applied for a library card, funnily enough. Finished the whole thing in two weeks. I felt real smart for an instance there. A fine feat of self-improvement, if I do say so myself.鈥�
(A fierce looking, burly man who goes by the name of Carlyle interrupts): 鈥淎 philosopher, eh? Bah! Let me tell you something, lad. Buy these fine gentlemen (he intently looks around the room) enough pints of lager and they鈥檒l all be 鈥減hilosophizin鈥欌€� soon enough. Isn鈥檛 that right, men?鈥� (the whole room shakes with laughter)
Nate [uneasy]:鈥淲ell, Plato sort of advocated that philosophy is a serious business, to be handled with a clear, well-educated mind, you know. Among other things, he also viewed alcohol as a possible hindrance to that. So that鈥檚 us out, I鈥檓 afraid.鈥�
Roger [jumping in]: 鈥淗e did, did he? Well, I am a working man with a wife and the fruit of my overactive loins to provide for. After eight hours of breaking my back in the factory, I just want to go to me pub, unwind and drink my scotch. Anything other than that is a damned luxury. Ya see my meaning here?鈥�
Nate: [exasperatedly sighs]鈥淚 do, and you鈥檙e probably right. More than likely, reading these things is a waste of time anyway for folk like us.鈥�
Roger: [approvingly] 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the spirit, laddie! Don鈥檛 concern yourself with these things, it is quite useless. We are simple folk, ye know, who don鈥檛 count at all in the grand scheme of things. Trust me, I have seen it all. Best enjoy what we have and hope for the best. Leave that lofty thinkin鈥� to those smug arseholes in their lofty places. I wouldn鈥檛 have it any other way meself. Damn proud to be a nobody at the bottom. At least there is honour in that. (He pauzes for a moment, immersed in thought)
Bah, enough of this. Barman, a round of drinks for all!鈥�
(They all erupt into loud shouts of appreciation)
Man: 鈥淓vening, all.鈥� (The patrons demurely acknowledge his presence, and return to their drinks. The face of Roger, a much older man, lights up as he joyously steps towards the newcomer)
Roger: 鈥淣ate, ye bastard! Where have ye been all this time? Stuck in a sheep鈥檚 backside?鈥�(he guffaws, while shaking his friend's hand)
Nate [smiling feebly]: 鈥淓vening, Roger. Oh no, nothing as queer like that. Had some family business to attend to. I also have been busy reading, as a matter of fact..鈥�
Roger: 鈥淩eading? You?鈥�
Nate [feeling slight shame]: 鈥渊别蝉..鈥�
Roger:鈥淒idn鈥檛 peg you as the intellectual type, mate.鈥�
Nate: 鈥淥h, I am not, I can assure you. Let me explain. You know about that particularly nasty storm a forthnight ago?"
Roger:"Aye, the Great Storm of 2017. Already a legend in these parts."
Nate:"Well, I got myself caught in the open street during its peak, and sought shelter in the nearest building. Turned out it was the bloody library! Quite a shock, let me tell you."
Roger: 鈥淩eally? I didn鈥檛 even know we had one! Didn鈥檛 Thatcher close it down back in the eighties? What the hell else did we elect her for?鈥�(he falls prey to a violent fit of laughter, and is soon joined by the others)
(Nate waits until the noise dies down and soberly resumes his tale) "All right, men, in all seriousness now. So here I found myself in that building I had never been in before, and which I couldn鈥檛 wait to leave. But, since the storm didn鈥檛 show any sign of abating, I thought it best to stay put and kill some time browsing. What else鈥檚 a man to do, eh? Well, for some reason I ended up in the philosophy section, and found this book titled the Republic by this fella named Plato. Does that ring a bell with anyone?鈥�
(A stout little man named Edmund enters the conversation) 鈥淧lato? Famous bloke, innit?鈥�
Nate: 鈥淵es, rather. In it he sort of details how society should be run by so-called philosopher kings. Rather strict in his way of approaching it, methinks. Not a lot of freedom, or much fun at all really.鈥�
Roger: 鈥淗mm. Got you to keep flippin' the pages though, no?鈥�
Nate: 鈥淧retty much. The missus always said I was a right philistine, and should get some more culture in my system. The back cover did mention it was 鈥榓 foundational text of Western civilisation鈥�, so I figured I might bloody well start there. I read for an hour or so, and then took it home. First time I applied for a library card, funnily enough. Finished the whole thing in two weeks. I felt real smart for an instance there. A fine feat of self-improvement, if I do say so myself.鈥�
(A fierce looking, burly man who goes by the name of Carlyle interrupts): 鈥淎 philosopher, eh? Bah! Let me tell you something, lad. Buy these fine gentlemen (he intently looks around the room) enough pints of lager and they鈥檒l all be 鈥減hilosophizin鈥欌€� soon enough. Isn鈥檛 that right, men?鈥� (the whole room shakes with laughter)
Nate [uneasy]:鈥淲ell, Plato sort of advocated that philosophy is a serious business, to be handled with a clear, well-educated mind, you know. Among other things, he also viewed alcohol as a possible hindrance to that. So that鈥檚 us out, I鈥檓 afraid.鈥�
Roger [jumping in]: 鈥淗e did, did he? Well, I am a working man with a wife and the fruit of my overactive loins to provide for. After eight hours of breaking my back in the factory, I just want to go to me pub, unwind and drink my scotch. Anything other than that is a damned luxury. Ya see my meaning here?鈥�
Nate: [exasperatedly sighs]鈥淚 do, and you鈥檙e probably right. More than likely, reading these things is a waste of time anyway for folk like us.鈥�
Roger: [approvingly] 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the spirit, laddie! Don鈥檛 concern yourself with these things, it is quite useless. We are simple folk, ye know, who don鈥檛 count at all in the grand scheme of things. Trust me, I have seen it all. Best enjoy what we have and hope for the best. Leave that lofty thinkin鈥� to those smug arseholes in their lofty places. I wouldn鈥檛 have it any other way meself. Damn proud to be a nobody at the bottom. At least there is honour in that. (He pauzes for a moment, immersed in thought)
Bah, enough of this. Barman, a round of drinks for all!鈥�
(They all erupt into loud shouts of appreciation)
July 21, 2014
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賮賵賯鈥屫з勜关ж� 鬲乇蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲丕 亘丨丕賱 禺賵賳丿賲 .. 诏乇趩賴 爻亘讴 賮賱爻賮蹖 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 鬲丕 亘禺卮 賴丕蹖蹖 乇賵 亘丕 爻禺鬲蹖 賲鬲賵噩賴 亘卮賲 丕賲丕 胤乇蹖賯賴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵丕賯毓丕 亘蹖 賳馗蹖乇賴 . 鬲賵賵蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 丿乇亘丕乇賴 毓丿丕賱鬲 氐丨亘鬲 賲蹖讴賳賴 .. 丿乇 丕亘鬲丿丕 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 卮乇賵毓 亘賴 爻丕禺鬲賳 蹖賴 賲丿蹖賳賴 賮丕囟賱賴 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 亘丕 匕讴乇 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 賵馗蹖賮賴 賴乇 毓囟賵 丕蹖賳 噩丕賲毓賴 乇賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 .. 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘乇丕蹖 卮賳丕禺鬲 賲賮賴賲賵賲 毓丿丕賱鬲 丕夭 讴賱 亘賴 噩夭亍 亘乇賲蹖诏乇丿賴 .. 賲孬丕賱 賲卮賴賵乇 睾丕乇 乇賵 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕賵賳 丕賳賵丕毓 丨讴賵賲鬲 乇賵 丕夭 鬲蹖賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 賵 丕賱蹖诏丕乇卮蹖 賵 丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 賵 丿蹖讴鬲丕鬲賵乇蹖 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖讴賳賴 .. 倬爻 丕夭蹖賳 賴丕 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘賴 賲賵囟賵毓 賴賳乇賴丕蹖 夭蹖亘丕 亘禺氐賵氐 卮毓乇 賵 賳賯丕卮蹖 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭賴 賵 丕賵賳賴丕 乇賵 鬲賯賱蹖丿蹖 丕夭 丨丕賱丕鬲 賳賮爻丕賳蹖 賵 卮亘丨蹖 丕夭 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭卮賵賳 丿賵乇蹖 讴乇丿 .. 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲賮賴賵賲 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇賵 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 亘丕 乇賵卮 禺丕氐 禺賵丿卮 孬丕亘鬲 賲蹖讴賳賴 讴賴 毓丿丕賱鬲 丿賯蹖賯賳 賴賮鬲氐丿 賵 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 賳賴 亘丕乇 丕夭 馗賱賲 亘賴鬲乇賴 .. 賮氐賱 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘诏賲丕賳賲 夭蹖亘丕鬲乇蹖賳 亘禺卮 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 賴爻鬲 .. 鬲賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丿賴賲 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 乇賵丨 丕賳爻丕賳 乇賵 乇賵丨蹖 賮賳丕賳丕倬匕蹖乇 賵 噩丕賵丿丕賳 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 亘丕 賳賯賱 蹖賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丕夭 卮禺氐蹖 亘賳丕賲 丕乇 讴賴 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕蹖 賲乇丿诏丕賳 乇賮鬲賴 賵 亘乇诏卮鬲賴 噩賲賱賴 讴賱蹖丿蹖 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 丕賵賳 丕蹖賳 賴爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘丕蹖丿 乇丕賴 賲蹖丕賳賴 賵 丕毓鬲丿丕賱 乇賵 丿乇 倬蹖卮 亘诏蹖乇賴 賵 丕夭 賲爻蹖乇 毓丿丕賱鬲 禺丕乇噩 賳卮賴 .. 讴鬲丕亘 亘蹖 賳馗蹖乇 賵 賮賵賯鈥屫з勜关ж� 丕爻 賵 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 鬲乇噩賲賴 禺賵賵亘 丕賯丕蹖 賮賵丕丿 乇賵丨丕賳蹖 賴賲 爻倬丕爻诏夭丕乇 蹖 讴乇丿 亘禺丕胤乇 賲毓乇賮蹖 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇 亘丕卮讴賵賴 亘賴 賲乇丿賲 丕蹖乇丕賳 ...
May 7, 2021
Plato is one of those writers/philosophers who is very hard to comprehend if you haven鈥檛 read him before or not interested in Philosophy.
Socrates, his master is a bit mellow in his way of teaching. In this book, Socrates is having a discussion with four others about the different variants that comprise of a 'STATE'. Justice is also one of the main themes in the book as justice provides a parameter of guidance among the people and how they would treat one another.
Though this book is full of interesting themes, however it is at times too much discussed and elaborated upon which makes it a bit demanding and challenging.
| | | |
Socrates, his master is a bit mellow in his way of teaching. In this book, Socrates is having a discussion with four others about the different variants that comprise of a 'STATE'. Justice is also one of the main themes in the book as justice provides a parameter of guidance among the people and how they would treat one another.
Though this book is full of interesting themes, however it is at times too much discussed and elaborated upon which makes it a bit demanding and challenging.
| | | |
Displaying 1 - 30 of 6,535 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.