ŷ������

After having just finished the entire works of Plato found at my local bookstore you do not know how happy I am to hear you say "He WANTS you to disagree with him". Would you also say he was joking when he was explaining his idea of a Utopia in "The Republic"? I certainly hope so!

Thank you for this review. I am going to refer to it in mine.

hm..do you find this book actual for modern generation?

A sober, sound, and mature retort to some of the less generous reviews.

Alexandria wrote: "After having just finished the entire works of Plato found at my local bookstore you do not know how happy I am to hear you say "He WANTS you to disagree with him". Would you also say he was joking..."

I wouldn't say he was joking. He's deadly serious. But that said, I don't think he thought that his Utopia was a realistic proposal. Rather, I think he was showing one instance what the extremes of rational thought could lead to. Are there parts of the Utopia which if enacted would make life better? For sure. Are there parts which if enacted would make life worse? Equally for sure. Which are which? Ah, there's where you have to argue with him and come to your own conclusion, which will probably differ not only from his but from most other people's.

NWO agrees with Plato. This is the model of their dreams to dominate the world.

Agreed. I think the point about Plato is to recognise that he was making fallacious arguments.

Filbert wrote: "Agreed. I think the point about Plato is to recognise that he was making fallacious arguments."

But making them for a non-fallacious point.

That's a shame he wanted people to disagree with him because all I noticed was Glaucon dickriding/agreeing with everything he had to say without question

You are weird. Somebody wrote a book. It is fallacious. It is deceitful. And later on it is sold as smart for centuries by individuals who seem to be not smart enough to see the obvious. So this volume received 5 out of 5 because, unlike your current dislikes, the author seems to accept to be debated?

Ietrio wrote: "You are weird. Somebody wrote a book. It is fallacious. It is deceitful. And later on it is sold as smart for centuries by individuals who seem to be not smart enough to see the obvious. So this vo..."

He throws out the most challenging challenge there is in literature: he asks people to think.

He happens to have raised almost every important question that mankind has discussed ever since he wrote. What does it mean to live a good life? What is the best form of government? What is love? What is justice? Should people be just for its own benefit, or only out of fear of getting caught? How did we get here? Why are we here? And on and on.

But he doesn't give answers. What he gives is the process for finding answers. But you have to work at it. Which is hard. Very hard. Most people give up, so they never get to why the book is worth reading and re-reading and re-reading and pondering and re-reading again. Because when somebody asks them tough questions, people want answers, they don't want to be told that you have to find the answer for yourself. And when they offer facile answers they resent being shown how facile those answers are.

When you have read a Platonic dialogue at least five times and spent much of a year thinking hard about it, then why it is such a great book gradually starts to appear. And if you're lucky you become a bit better person.

But hard thinking is hard. Much easier not to do it, but to blame the book.

He, who?

Plato, of course.

That would make Socrates some sort of Laurel from the duo Laurel and Hardy.

Nope.

So the character is Socrates. But the verbose Socrates is some sort of Plato in disguise inviting people to debate him. The same silly bordering stupid dialogue tells me Plato badly needs people to drop to their knees and confess the greatness of such a shallow reasoning. Notice how long fuzzy arguments are broken into parts by simple and suggestive "I agree"? Read how this is not the Socrates/Plato/whomever inviting for a contest, but the Socrates/Plato/whomever humbling the proud thinker proving once more how this BatMan of Antiquity wins again? Is it at any point that he has the decency to bow before another?

Okay. You don't get Plato. That's fine. Fortunately, other people do.

Wow. I am extremely impressed with the patience in Everyman's responses to letrio. I wish I could reward blatant rudeness so :)

nice review

He asks interesting questions and provides thought provoking answers. His arguments are flawed. The answers hold an element of truth, yet they are flawed.

Why are they flawed?

What is a better answer?

Is their ever really an answer at all, or does the argument always become circular?

Your viewpoint simply becomes the place upon which you park in the circle.

If you hold that their are fundamental truths, then this book helps you find them, know them and believe them.

Jim wrote: Your viewpoint simply becomes the place upon which you park in the circle.

Wow! Simply genius! You solved me some dilemmas. Thank you.

Excellent review. I'm gonna read it soon.

Very well-said!

Good analysis. Plato encourages argument. He wants people to think rather than agree with him.

The principle is to derive from what is known, and so merge the truths to resolve the falshoods. This only reflects the limitations of their grasped truths, and nothing more. However, all carry limited truths.

Thanks. I knew there's more to philosophers like Plato than what everyone saying. I just bought The Republic on my phone in Google Play. I feel like that people of this modern era have been merciless towards Plato and other philosophers, thinking their ways are superior when that's not the case. Thanks for clearing things up.

It’s Socrates btw...

Gratitude gentleman. I enjoyed greatly reading your ping pong game of accusations and justifications.

Plato is the greatest philosopher throughout history of thought. no doubt ha had made some bad arguments as a human. but his brilliant ideas are respectful for us because they lead us to dare to thinking by ourself.

Excellent review . Thanks . I also thought Plato's questions and the following conclusions were dubious and highly disputable i.e. "straw" . But it was not at all stupid to ask them .
I wonder if he did this on purpose to make his readers think ?

Cormoran wrote: "Gratitude gentleman. I enjoyed greatly reading your ping pong game of accusations and justifications."

Ha ha ha ha ! So did I . 😆

Beautifully said

Agree 👍

Yes! I'm only 1 book in, but I totally agree with you. The point of this book is not to point out objective truths or enforce subjective opinions. It is to make the reader think and form their own ideas, as well as to learn how to question our own thoughts and discover fallacies. We all need an inner Socrates to help scrutinize our own ideas.

My favorite joke Plato is playing on his audience is the attack on impersonation in two measures. I was quite annoyed by the long argument against poets and dramatists when it hit me that he cannot mean exactly what he is saying, especially since he is saying it through impersonating Socrates. After the final attack against impersonation and imitation, Plato rounds of by telling a story as Socrates through imitation. It just makes you wonder how many such jokes or teasing you have missed.

Great review, @Everyman.

Makes sense. Maybe one day we’ll abandon Plato and discover the scientific method and light our homes after dark and extend the average lifespan by 50 years and�� Oh wait.

lol dude used the "you don't get it" card

Plato understands human psychology better than any other philosopher