Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Surely you admit that my review, though it came after yours and is of the same mind exactly, eclipses your opinion completely?!?

Well, it's hard to say exactly what was going through Plato's mind when he wrote it, but I think it's mostly allegorical and metaphoric. And I think the later Western society has most likely greatly misinterpreted it.

Yes, of course, that is obvious...

I lol'd really hard.

You forgot the part where it goes like this

SOCRATES: "I will not prove my point and, clearly, you won't question me whatsoever."
PHILISTINE: "Uhm, actually I think you're clearly wrong about everything. I'd like to stay and be the only voice in the debate who questions you, but I have to be randomly going, mostly to sex young Greek boys, and worship at the temple of Jeff, God of Hair-dos. So I leave all the spineless morons here to carry on the debate. Hopefully they won't just lay around, licking your ass." *exunt Philistine*
SOCRATES: "Ah, now that he's gone, who disagrees with me?"
CHORUS: "Us! Wait... not at all, can we have a hug oh wise bearded man who resembles both God and Santa?"

Do you actually think that PLATO is "retarded"?

The comments on this site reflect the shameful tendencies of modern people (the trend is most evident in America) to underestimate Plato's work. Jason claims that Plato was "only appealing and pandering". Was Socrates only appealing and pandering too, Jason? Was that why he was executed? Oh yes, and all of the ideas in the Republic were conventional? Perhaps you should review a little bit of history, and see these dialogues in context. They were revolutionary, and still are. Plato is "retarded"? I dare say that we have devolved into further absurdity. It is to Plato's credit that he anticipated that his texts would be so misunderstood (read The Phaedrus), and for that reason was highly critical of writing as a philosophical method. He observes that words, once they are written down, are frozen..and they end up in the hands of those who understand just as much as in the hands of those who do NOT. You sirs, do not. I suspect you develop your interpretive faculties a little more and do justice to a text that deserves more attention than the poor excuse of a reading that you give it.

You have failed to see the purpose of this text, and I suspect that you will be unable to derive benefit from reading classical literature, as you know nothing of antiquity and even less of philosophy.

Your characterization of Plato makes you look like a complete idiot, and this is regrettable, as surely you are not...otherwise you would not feel so assured in your judgment of a text that has been recognized as one of the most complicated and difficult texts in the history of western literature. Surely it takes a wise man to pass such authoritative judgment on such a book. I wish that you would regale us with more of your wisdom, oh divine interpreter of texts.

Perhaps you have some fascinating wisdom to share with us about the nature of Homer or Sophocles? You have obviously handled the subject of Plato with grace and fairness and can now move on to greater things than the ramblings of a retard.

Goodbye, and I wish you the best of luck, truly.

And yet, you continue. Perhaps you should read Plato's Symposium, and reflect on the fact that the Symposium itself would not be allowed into the ideal state of the Republic. This might provide a hint that really, Plato understood well the limitations of the ideal state and knew that not only was it unrealizable, but perhaps undesirable. YES, the state Plato has Socrates describe is in many ways how you describe it. I was not necessarily contesting that. Is the purpose of the dialogue to advocate for this kind of state unequivocally? Certainly not.

Pardon my perceived condescension, and I agree with you about our terminology! I'm just disagreeing with you about a fundamental point of the Republic...Plato was putting forth his ideal state as a problem that needed to be solved..it is a thought experiment, and its limitations are recognized by Socrates himself and by the structure of the dialogue as a whole. It isn't a set of realizable guidelines or guidelines that Plato wanted to see realized! Also, Socrates refutes the "power is justice" argument in Books One and Two of the Republic, it seems to be a significant part of his agenda to explore and explode that idea.

If I am guilty of condescension sir, you are guilty of consistently claiming to have some kind of knowledge that exempts you from granting these texts their history as provocative documents that have received all sorts of attention from the most valued thinkers civilization has had to offer, not just neoclassical sycophants (I wonder who you have in mind here..Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Thoreau?) You know "enough about philosophy and Hellenic Greece", apparently just enough to claim that a text that you do not understand is irrelevant. Striking. The difference between me and you: you think you understand what the Republic is saying, I don't know what the Republic is saying, I don't think it was "saying" anything, merely posing a set of problems and questions that he leaves to the reader to figure out. Plato wasn't a dogmatist. The ideal city breaks down by the end of the Republic, it is not a practical guidebook, Plato would probably be the first to agree with you about why the ideal city, frankly, sucks!


It may be relevant here that the Republic was preserved in Arabic alongside Western manuscript traditions, and some of the most valuable commentaries we have come from non-Western traditions.

History from the bottom-up?

You've been reading things that are "actually" relevant? I wonder what those are, I should surely like to know what is "actually" relevant, since Plato is so obviously deficient in "relevance". It's a surprise we even have his manuscripts, I suppose. Or that Columbia chooses to include Plato in their core curriculum. Or that his texts constantly defy clear-cut interpretation, as evinced by the discussion we've been having.

I mean no personal hostility..I am simply not a neoclassical "sycophant", and Plato's texts had and have a hugely transformational effect on my life. Furthermore, I have witnessed their effect in the classroom, both from the perspective of a student and teacher, and to write off their value as you do, from a holier-than-thou perspective and naive rebellion against the classical canon tainted with the thought that you have "enough knowledge" to do this I find somewhat disturbing.

Our debate has lapsed into personal attacks (on both of our fronts). It's not about finding "legitimacy" in old texts. I was not a "pedant" when I first read Plato's dialogues. Perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree on this issue. Canons are determined by more than power structures. Core curricula do not exist in order to provide seminars on social insignificance. The Western tradition has a beginning that is well worth studying on its own right, whether or not you adhere to your (mis)interpretation of the text. Or perhaps its best that no one knows how to read Greek or Latin? Surely that's just a bunch of psychobabble too.

Surely you understand that the reason I keep responding is because you are accusing me of something extremely revolting, and because I make choices in my life based on things other than playing academic mindgames, psychobabbling, and divorcing myself from reality. The dialogues are extremely valuable..the Socratic method is not just a literary construct.

Best review I've read on this site so far.

Jason Williams, I don't see how you can so easily decry a book you have never read.

Just because something's outdated doesn't mean you can't appreciate its importance to the history of ideas.

Zach wrote: "Just because something's outdated doesn't mean you can't appreciate its importance to the history of ideas."

My goodness, lots of discussion on this review. Wish I'd been active on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ while it was happening.

Anyway, Zach: I'm not sure to whom your comment is addressed, but assuming you're talking to me, I do appreciate its importance, which is what makes me so angry.

The Republic (and the rest of Plato's work, ) helped establish a pattern of overly-simplistic generalization, rhetoric disguised as dialectic, and false dichotomies parading as analysis.

And you can make the claim that at the time it was the forefront of philosophical thought, but the few extant works by Heraclitus of Ephesus show that philosophers of the time (and of earlier times) were capable of not only grasping the notion of concurrent-but-contradictory truths, of constant flux--of uncertainty, to use a more contemporary term--but giving it a (relatively) thorough philosophical exploration.

To give a specific example, the Allegory of the Cave infuriates me. Plato makes a considered, persuasive argument that we accept the reality that we are presented, that we can't trust our impressions--that things are not necessarily what they seem. I find it logically incongruous that the same person who makes that argument--someone who has clearly read Heraclitus and Cratylus--can then champion a philosophy that takes as its foundation the notion of True Forms, of Perfect Ideals. I also find it incredibly annoying that that very same person, who describes his own logical shortcomings (in his own argument!) without recognizing them, is considered one of the fathers of logical thought.

That Plato's arguments are rife with these inconsistencies isn't my problem; that he uses the structure of a (strawman-heavy) dialogue to gloss over these glaring omissions is. So I do understand and appreciate Plato's importance to the history of ideas; I just see his as a largely negative influence, establishing a tone for future philosophical discussion of "there is only one True and Correct thing, let me show you why you are wrong", which can only be stultifying to the search for new and more interesting and revelatory ideas.

Yes yes yes! This is fantastic!

Gabe rules. Go Gabe!

While Plato was clearly a genius, he vastly overrated the intelligence of his audience -- an unfortunate miscalculation. Gabe's suggestion regarding the Symposium is the right one -- but I'll say no more about that. The extent to which this discussion has thrived (cf. Thrasymachus and Socrates in bk. 1) is testimony to Plato's genius -- he still teaches.

May I point out that this was an argument (debate, what have you) based entirely from a review with the flagrant misuse of the word "retard"? I feel, at the very least a bit of respect should be due to antiquities, by abstaining from coloring the language with modern, inappropriate slang. I'd just prefer to see comments made tastefully.

Julie wrote: "May I point out that this was an argument (debate, what have you) based entirely from a review with the flagrant misuse of the word "retard"? I feel, at the very least a bit of respect should be due to antiquities, by abstaining from coloring the language with modern, inappropriate slang. I'd just prefer to see comments made tastefully."

You may point that out. And I may remind you that this is my review and thus in no way subject to your dominion of humorless self-seriousness. As far as what you prefer: Since this is, again, my review, I will write in accordance to my own preference. For example, my preference would be to never be forced to deal with the kind of pompous killjoy arrogance on display here. Or perhaps your brilliant satire. At the moment, I'm having more fun presuming the former, so let's run with that, shall we? (Hint: We shall.)

"Antiquities" aren't holy things. They're old stuff. That's it. They're incredibly valuable because of what they tell us about our social development and collective history, but they are made of wood and leather and stone just like everything else. They are not comprised of some kind of Sacred Materia. In three thousand years, they will be digging up the half-destroyed carcasses of iPods and debating their uses just as we do Archimedes' Screw. They are just old stuff, and as such demand much learned study and consideration, but are in no way sullied by "slang".

In the same way, Plato's argument here is facile at best. Most of his rhetorical methods wouldn't pass his own rigorous examination, hinging as they do on preposterous and obvious strawmen, and the work deserves to be honestly debated on its merits (and not solely on its age or historiographical value). To hold ancient writings to some vaunted standard simply because they are old does a discredit to you, a discredit to the works, and a discredit to the time in which they were written. It's Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc dressed up in bowties and tweed elbow-patched jackets, and it's elitist is the worst way--it undermines the discourse instead of elevating it.

So: Lighten up. It was obviously a joke, and I chose the language that I did simply because I thought the sentence "Plato is retarded" was funny and made for a punchy tagline (given the traffic this review has gotten, I'd say I was right). Could I have written a very sober review of Plato's rhetorical shortcomings, full of pomp and buzzword-heavy self-aggrandizement? Sure. But that wouldn't have been as much fun.


All that assumes you were being serious. If you weren't, then your comment is hilariously dry. I decided to respond to it mostly because I found much of this comments section to be in desperate need of a little joviality, even if your particular comment was intended as the joke I hope it was.

I just finished reading Allan Bloom's interpretive essay on The Republic, and he was constantly saying: don't take Plato at face value here, he's being ironic. The entire point of The Republic was to show the contradiction between politics and philosophy.
Perhaps a lot of the accusations made against Plato in the above comments could be avoided if you try this interpretation.

Let me explain why I would recommend Brendan James' review to everyone: ....

Dude, really? You have no appreciation for philosophical work don't you? That is what this review reflects to me. To a bare minimum, you can have explained the parts where his logic appeared to be repeating common sense--to the ancient Greeks (and to us still today) he is one of the people who got us going in philosophy to begin with. I just hope you do not read another philosophical work and feel the same way.

@SpecialK:
That's interesting (I'll pick up Bloom's translation at some point) but my real problem is with Plato's methodology--his reliance on strawmen and wild, unjustified leaps of logic that skirt the core of his questions--which is the same across his works (especially Timeaus).

@Paul:
Good show, old boy: You quite put me in my place! Jolly good!

@Brandon:
Yes, clearly. That I attack Plato based on the shocking inconsistency of his arguments and then go on to cite (in the comments) other philosophers of his era (well, Heraclitus predates Plato by around a century, but still) is clear evidence that I have "no appreciation for philosophical work".

Either that, or your woefully reductive "If you don't like Plato, you must not appreciate any philosophy ever" demonstrates exactly the kind of simplistic, false dichotomy I despise Plato for using (disguised as a learned, reasoned exploration).

Perhaps if you had bothered to read any of the comments, you would see that I recognize the historical importance of Plato's philosophy (or, as you hilariously describe it, "got us going in philosophy to begin with"), and that is exactly why I dislike him so much: unlike Heraclitus, Plato's model for the universe precludes uncertainty, ambiguity, or subjectivity. He has infected the Western canon with the encumbering belief that things must either be ENTIRELY THIS WAY or ENTIRELY THAT WAY, and somehow he thinks we are capable of comprehending some objective Truth (despite successfully arguing against exactly that with the Allegory of the Cave).

I have read many philosophical works, but I reserve my esteem for thinkers who strive to challenge themselves by asking questions instead of resorting to obvious (and intellectually dishonest) rhetorical devices to provide comforting-but-illusory "answers".

More Jason and Gabe!

Thanks for a good laugh. Excellent review :)

AMEN!

I read this and found it a complete waste of a book. It was clear that Plato was full of himself. Nearly every argument/debate in it was all about how philosophers are right and everyone else is smoking weed.

I personally found some points relatable and sensible but I think the whole "agree to disagree" concept was birthed by over-educated morons. Which Plato displays beautifully in this book. If I learned anything from this book, it's to never waste money on anything written by Plato or his students again.

hahaha best review ever!!

You obviously have not grasp of philosophy or the Socratic method whatsoever. Stick to reviewing Magic Tree House, or whatever's more at your level of comprehension.

Ariadne wrote: "You obviously have not [sic] grasp of philosophy or the Socratic method whatsoever. Stick to reviewing Magic Tree House, or whatever's more at your level of comprehension."

I'm inclined to think you're just a troll, as you're a brand new account with no books and no reviews (and you list "philosophy, nonfiction" as your "favorite books", even though I think it's pretty clear that it's asking for favorite books, not favorite genres).

However, let's pretend, just for a minute, that you aren't just trolling: As I said in earlier comments, this is intended to be a humorous review for a book that I genuinely believe to be grossly (and harmfully) over-rated. For a more serious and thoughtful explanation of that belief, I invite you to read my comments in the discussion thread above. If, after reading my more detailed and serious criticism, you still have nothing more insightful or constructive to add to the discussion than the petulant name-calling you display in the above-quoted comment, I invite you to piss off.

OMG YOU are stupid, what a fact

Anna wrote: "OMG YOU are stupid, what a fact"

In the spirit of Platonic thought-exercises, let's pretend, just for a moment, that someone who can't even be bothered to type out "Oh my God" is worth a reply. Under that pretense, a dialogue about your comment might look something like:

ME: "Your comment is neither informative nor entertaining in any way. Really, it has no value whatsoever. It's just tedious idiocy, and anyone who reads it should feel robbed of the time it took to do so. (Certainly, anyone who takes the time to respond to it should be ashamed of his/herself.) Wouldn't you agree, Strawman?"
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious!"

Brendan wrote: "Anna wrote: "OMG YOU are stupid, what a fact"

In the spirit of Platonic thought-exercises, let's pretend, just for a moment, that someone who can't even be bothered to type out "Oh my God" is wort..."

Anna wrote: "OMG YOU are stupid, what a fact"

Oh my God you are too cool I must take my words back because you wrote some smart-like phrases, it worked mate! Cheers

Plato did some hard drugs haha

This seriously makes me want to read it even more. I've heard nothing but good things about Plato throughout my life. So, as I eventually read it with this review in mind, I'll be thinking about his theories even more, whether I agree with it or not.

All these negative comments show that Plato should never be read outside of a class. Brendan, you're completely lacking context. Those "wild hypotheses" Plato made are actually arguments that were popular among other philosophers of his time. These philosophers were called "sophists" and Plato regularly waltzed around town opposing them. Now I can accept claims that Plato is arrogant. He was. He literally waltzed around town questioning experts and proved them wrong only to then leave. However, the notion that Plato is a philosopher that does not deserve the respect we give him is the result of misinformation. Please excuse whatever arrogance this may present, but you're missing contextual information about Greek Philosophy and Plato, as well as why Plato is important today.

Plato is a searcher of Truth (capital intended). Truth for him is what Philosophy regularly looks for "the fundamentals". The World of Forms is not some figment of his imagination. It's the very fundamentals of all understanding; universal laws; Truth.

Also, The Allegory of the Cave would best be read by either someone in an epistemology class or with a general background in philosophy, because the allegory refers to ideas about the different levels of consistency in reality. The level right before Truth is mathematics: general principles that encompass specifics about the world, but not everything.

As a searcher, Plato's work is not prescriptive. He would wince at the idea. This is a man who openly acknowledges he knows nothing and believes he will continue to know nothing until he dies. All his questioning is merely preparation to understand what he learns after death.

We continue to study Plato with great devotion because there are some large gold nuggets in his philosophy and we wonder how he came up with them in a society that appeared so antiquated. If you read the whole of The Republic, you see ideas of gender equality (warped and still somewhat primitive, but present and considering his time, innovative). We also respect his method for achieving truth. It's actually pretty cool to walk around questioning experts and manipulating their arguments to find faults and better them. This is why they use The Socratic Method in law schools.

We like "old stuff". We learn a lot from old stuff, and we highly respect what we learn. Therefore, we give it titles that may appear reverent such as "antiquity". We give a lot of stuff reverent titles. It's a sign of respect and love. Does one call a parent's mother "old mom"? No! One calls her "grandmother". Grand + Mother. A mother who is grand/great. That brings with it ideas of age, knowledge, and reverence.

The only words worth anything that you have some how managed to get on the screen in front of us is: "I'd recommend this book to everyone."

There is no presumptive argument, idiot. When socrates says "there is a perfect beauty , justice etc." you think he is saying that there is an actual person or thing with a beauty or justice that can't be overcome, you are thinking empirically ,not logically . As a logical proposition , the statement "there is a perfect X" is true and obvious, because justice bare no gradation, there is only one justice, and that is the perfect one, while the others are copies. Dumbass

Now, the religious conclusions are, in the modern world , easily to dump. Many philosophers create a monster rational cathedral, that is so hard to break , many times impossible, just to put a God on top of it.

FYI: Notice how after he describes the city Socrates reminds Adeimantus that the city is a metaphor for the soul. The different classes in the city are parts of our soul. Maybe Socrates favoured such a city, but it's almost certain that Plato did not.

Also: notice how Plato says images are less real, then uses images to describe reality. Doesn't this throw into doubt whether Plato really believes in "Forms"? Think of the allegories as road-maps, not Plato's conception of reality.

you're an idiot

I have read a few comments of yours replying to other people on this review, and I could say that I don't think you are not a clever person, but I do have a very cynical view of your critical reading skills because of the review itself. For one, your claim of Plato being stupid was based on less than a valid argument, and a significant lack of context. If you want to make such a huge argument, Brendan, please do provide supporting evidence with higher quality that has been carefully considered, because your criticism against Plato really got my attention, but I felt unsatisfied, in a way, as the evidence provided was insufficient. Cheers.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion Brendan. But if all you've ever gotten out of reading Plato, is that he's an f'ed up idiot who invents fallacies and makes wildly ridiculous presumptive statements. Then, I don't know what to tell you other than I feel sorry for you. Your narcissism and your obstinate intellect are holding you back from discovering a cache of deep wisdom, on advice for daily living, the pitfalls of human nature, the potential discovery of a greater reality, living more meaningfully, cultivation of the spirit, and cataclysmic moral growth in the self, from one of antiquity's most influential and profound thinkers. Most idiots haven't seriously impacted the political, philosophical, religious, scientific, and general academic thought process of the Western World like Plato. The rediscovery and re-printing of his and Aristotle's texts, helped to spark the intellectual fire in Europe that led to the Renaissance for God's sake. Quite the accomplishment for an idiot lol. And again this is not just me saying this, this is acknowledged by hundreds of respected and credible academics, historians, philosophers, and other notable intellectuals through out the centuries up to contemporary times. Again, many people disagree with Plato's political system, and his ideas about forms and universals, but that says nothing about the man's obvious genius. There's a reason why he's left such a lasting legacy on the western world. Brendan, you and I will be dead a hundred years from now, and very few people will care, and a thousand years from now (assuming humanity is still around). When the totality of our works, writings, and deeds, have long been forgotten by people and erased by the great existential eraser of the cosmos. People will still be reading and studying Plato's works. Now I don't mean to disrespect you or put you on the spot. But you must understand that some of the most valuable and precious wisdom that you'll find in life, is not to be found in impenetrable, sound, deductive modal logic and argumentation. You can profoundly disagree with a philosopher and dismiss them as and idiot, and tragically miss out on the wealth of wisdom they and others could teach you. I implore you, don't let your ego and your intellect's collection of various academic knowledge, bankrupt you of true wisdom, don't be your own cave.

This is a hilarious review. I've had to read this book and also "politics"-Aristotle and I actually feel oppressed when I read their work. I very much dislike the naturalisation and moralisation of inequality these philosophers fall into the trap of; that slavery is a condition of "the soul" rather than a social condition. Despite all of their "wisdom" I think this is very short sighted.
The fact that these philosophers have permeated into the minds of others and influenced ideas throughout the course of history does not surprise me, their problematic ideas are seen everywhere in justifying oppression.

A lot of people here seem to forget that 'debate', 'logic' and 'arguments' were in no way formalized in Plato's time. His arguments are illogical because logic did not exist yet. It is exactly the obvious relativism of much of his arguments that prompted the discovery of logic by Aristotle. It's a bit naive of all of you to think that people ever actually took Plato for his word, because they didn't. Next time you guys read a philosopher, buy a Penguin edition and read the introduction, then you don't have to make a fool of yourself online.

i wanted o read d book but now m confused !! hilarious review by d way 1

Sooooo you do realize that there are major ideas in Plato's Republic are reflected today in many societies around the world, right? The areas in the Four Virtues of the State are....ya know....nevermind. It's most likely a lost cause.

pfft. plebian.

I think a better word for the platonic naysayers in this dicussion would be sophomoric. "Idiot" indicates one who has gone there own way mentally. These folks aren't mad. They are "wise" fools.

Lol, I think this review is sooo true.