Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Reading the reviews for the Republic were...interesting. There is an awful lot of "oh, that Plato was so silly and simple and stupid. We're so much smarter today and the ideas are outdated. He doesn't really MEAN "Democracy" or "Republic." The Socratic method is so annoying! Just give me your argument, Sorcrates/Plato!" I even saw one review complaining about the parts when the dialogue between Socrates and Aristotle devolves into Monologue (Aristotle is definitely NOT in this work). These reviews however, are pretty much missing the point.

The city that Plato has Socrates describe is primarily a metaphor for the soul (though still an interesting thought experiment to consider). His words and concepts are couched in a specific time and place, yes, but like all great ideas and literature it speaks to all generations. Plato doesn't WANT you to agree with Socrates all the time: he leads you to certain conclusions only to go back on them as soon as he examines them (another thing reviewers complained of), but he wants to show you why it's a bad idea. Plato didn't write a treatise, he wrote a (series of) book(s) which worked to teach the reader how to think. You're supposed to keep reading this and keep revisiting the ideas and reconsidering how they work. When you learn something, go back and help others learn it. This work is, or at least spoke most deeply to me, a manual of how to think and how to do philosophy. Read The Republic, but read it with someone and discuss it; it's not meant to be read alone.