حسنا ربما تبدو لك الكلمات بسيطة والجمل أسلوبها سلس
إلا أن كل سطر يحمل داخله الكثير الكثير من الأفكار .
وبالعودة لفكرة كتاب إسرق كفنان .
فأري أن قواعد أفلاطون مادة جيدة لذلك .
إستنكرت بعضها طبعا وأعجبت ببعضها .
ساعدني بعض الفيديوهات لفهم أبعاد أخري للكتاب ولذلك العصر والفلسفة .
وأخيرا كتاب جيد لمن يغوص أما هواة السباحة
فيفوتهم ما في الأعماق من روائع .

و من منا لم يسمع عن أفلاطون؟

Ό,τι έχει γραφτεί στη φιλοσοφία από την κλασική εποχή κι έπειτα κι ό,τι αποτελεί κομμάτι της δυτικής παράδοσης, έστω κι άδηλα, όλα τους συνιστούν μια μακρά σειρά από υποσημειώσεις πάνω σ' αυτό εδώ το έργο.

Sokrates ya da Platon'u gözümüzde bu denli yüce ve şaşırtıcı kılan şey sanırım düşüncenin zamanla ilerlediğine olan inanç. Böyle olunca da ''Vay be! 2500 yıl önce nasıl da düşünmüş bunları!'' diye şaşırıp, büyüleniyoruz. Bana düşünce ilerlemiyor da sadece birikiyormuş gibi geliyor. Birikenlerin içinde de herkes yüzme bildiğince yüzüyor ancak. Havuza su ekleyebilenler hep aynı oranda kalıyor sanki. Havuzu dolu görünce de 2500 yıldır biriken kayda değer her şeyi çağımızın ilerleme hanesine yazıyoruz. Bence ilerlemiyoruz, sadece ilerlemeye şahit oluyoruz. Evet Sokrates, Platon ve diğerleri büyük zihinler. Ama şimdi birisi kalkıp Sokrates'in söylediklerini söyleyecek, yazdıklarını yazacak olsa büyük çoğunluğundan dehşete kapılırız gibi geliyor. Ki ben kapıldım da zaten, bence bu düşünceler olsa olsa tarihin en ''iyi'' niyetli distopyası olabilir. Ve şu sıralar Sokrates ve Platon'dan habersiz birileri belki tam olarak aynı şeyleri düşünüp hissediyordur. Bilemiyorum, kafam karışık. Tek bildiğim Sokrates'in tahayyül ettiği, Platon'un aktardığı bu Devlet'te asla yaşamak istemeyeceğim.

La République traite principalement de la Justice, quoiqu’on y trouve le détour le plus long peut être de toute la tradition philosophique occidentale. Néanmoins, ce détour vaut le coup, puisque il nous amène de l’Ethique au politique, en passant par l’épistémologie et la pédagogie. Ainsi, il présente une vision d’ensemble sur ce qui est considéré souvent comme des sujets isolés, donnant unité et cohérence à l’expérience humaine au niveau de tous ses aspects.

Le prologue pose le problème : c’est quoi la Justice ? L’injuste n’est-il pas plus heureux que le juste ? Les gens ne font-ils pas l’éloge de la justice seulement par peur de subir l’injustice ? Quelle récompense trouve-t-on en respectant les préceptes de la Justice ? Toutes ces questions, sont évidemment hors du champ platonicien traditionnel. Ce prologue est une propédeutique au raisonnement qui suit. Evidemment, ceux qui pensent l’utilité et la pratique s’arrête à ce niveau. Mais Platon pousse la discussion plus loin, en invoquant le sens de l’excellence et de la recherche du meilleur chez ses auditeurs, il débarque sur une dialectique qui va viser la Justice en soi, sans passer par l’injustice, pour prouver qu’elle est un Bien qui est son propre récompense.

Pour ce faire, il use d’une analogie des plus ingénieuses. Si les effets de la Justice sont difficiles à détecter à l’intérieure de l’âme de l’individu, ils sont bien visibles au niveau d’un groupement d’individus, d’une Cité. On est ainsi transposé de l’Ethique au Politique. La confusion des lecteurs commence ici. Le processus laborieux de la construction de la Cité parfaite mène Socrate et ses interlocuteurs à adopter des mesures des plus improbables. Il est question de la réglementation de la propriété privée et des produits de luxe, de la répartition des taches entre gouvernés et gouvernants, du choix de l’éducation des générations futures, de la censure de certaines formes artistiques et la gestion des corvées domestiques… L’objectif derrière tout ceci est de créer l’unité et la cohésion parfaite, déterminer les vrais dangers et les vraies valeurs de ceux qui ne le sont pas, et établir la priorité entre eux. Ainsi, dés le départ les causes des dissensions et d’instabilité seront éliminées, et donc celles de l’injustice également. La Justice à ce niveau macroscopique est le fait que chaque élément fait la tache pour laquelle il a été éduqué et préparé. L’usurpation d’un domaine par ceux qui ne sont pas qualifiés pour le pratiquer crée le déséquilibre et cause l’écroulement de tout l’édifice. La Justice est une harmonie entre des composants différents, qui assure que chaque composant est posé exactement là ou il le faut.

Revenant au niveau microscopique, ici Platon expose sa théorie de la nature tripartite de l’âme. Toujours par analogie avec la Cité, qui n’est qu’un agrandissement des mêmes composantes, l’âme comporte une partie rationnelle, une partie agressive et finalement la partie passionnelle. Chacune de ces parties fonctionnent différemment des autres, chacune a ces objectives. La première existe sur le niveau intellectuel, elle trouve satisfaction dans la recherche désintéressée du Vrai, du Bien, dans la contemplation du Beau, dans l’établissement de l’ordre. La deuxième, cherche l’honneur et la gloire, elle est sensible aux éloges et à la flatterie. La troisième est la plus basse de toutes. Elle est le siège des désirs de nature animale, de tous les débordements monstrueux et les excès impardonnables. Encore ici la Justice est l’harmonie entre ces parties, une harmonie ou la raison domine l’agressivité de l’homme et ses désirs.

Maintenant que la Justice est définie, il est temps de voir ce qui ce produit si cette existence harmonieuse est perturbée. On recommence au niveau de la Cité, ou les manifestations de l’injustice sont claires. Les régimes oligarchiques, démocratiques et tyranniques sont tous des dégradations du régime parfait de la Cité idéale et juste construite ci-haut. La cause principale est que une classe ne fait plus ce qu’elle est sensée faire. D’abord, c’est l’amour de l’honneur et de la distinction qui sème le désordre dans les rangs des gardiens, créant ainsi le régime oligarchique, ensuite vient l’amour des richesses, qui mobilisent l’opposition populaire et divise la Cité en cité des pauvres et cité des riches, la conséquence serait le régime démocratique, enfin, le régime tyrannique qui est le déchainement de tous les maux, où un seul individu, dominé par ses désirs domine toute la Cité, et en fait son esclave.

Platon passe directement du régime politique à l’individu. A l’intérieur de l’âme c’est le même processus qui se reproduit, se sont les parties agressive puis passionnelle qui détrônent la raison et prennent le commandement de l’homme. Une âme menée par son agressivité ou ses désirs est une âme d’esclave. Le bonheur réside dans la maitrise de ces composantes par la partie rationnelle. Sinon, c’est une existence tourmentée que mène l’injuste, victime des illusions et des apparences qui changent incessamment sans jamais atteindre le Vrai, le Bien et le Beau. Il termine cette partie sur l’image du tyran, qui en cherchant à soumettre la Cité devient esclave lui même.

En lisant la République, il faut toujours garder dans l’esprit l’élitisme de Platon. Evidemment, la contemplation du Bien et du Vrai n’est pas donnée à tout le monde. La plupart des gens vivent dans le tourment des apparences, comme des bêtes qui broutent et n’ont leurs yeux qu’en bas sans jamais pouvoir lever la tête vers ce qui est en haut, pour le dire exactement comme Platon le dit. Ainsi, cette définition de la Justice, et tout le raisonnement qui en découle, ne seront considérée que par celui qui s’éloigne de toute vulgarité, a le courage d’aller à l’encontre de l’opinion de la foule, et cherche la vie la plus excellente possible.

Devlet, Platon'un Sokratik-Diyalektik metodla 'ideal devlet'i, ama esasında 'doğruyu' ve doğru insanı aradığı; ihtiva ettiği fikirlerle ise yüzyıllar boyunca Batıda ve Doğuda yüzlerce medeniyeti ve düşünürü temelden etkilemiş; felsefenin ve siyaset teorisinin ilk büyük ve en önemli eserini oluşturuyor. Fakat eseri daha iyi özümseyebilmek için kanımca önce Platon'un felsefesini anlamak gerekiyor.

Platon'a göre, sürekli bir değişim ve oluşum içinde olan bir maddi evren olduğu kadar bir de öncesi ve sonu olmayan bir 'idealar evreni' bulunuyor. Platon, canlı ve cansız bütün varlıkların, duyularımızla algılayabildiğimiz şeylerin tümünün işte bu hiç değişmeyen ve hep var olan asıl hallerinin, yani 'idea'larının birer yansımasından başka birşey olmadığını savunuyor. Böylece gelip geçici maddi ilkelerden ziyade, asıl manevi ilkelerin var ve kalıcı olduğunu ortaya atarak ilk defa 'idealizm'i kuruyor. Devlet ise onun bu felsefesini mükemmel bir şekilde yansıtıyor, çünkü Platon arzuladığı devleti bu idealardan meydana getiriyor. Eserde Platon'un böylesi bir devletin henüz var olmamış olmasının hiç var olmayacağı anlamına gelmediğine, akıl süzgecinden geçtiği için her durumda onun en doğru devlet olacağına devamlı vurgu yaptığını görüyoruz.

Böylece eserine başlarken birincil amacı doğruyu eğriden ayırmak ve ona ulaşmak olan Platon, işe insandan değil, devletten başlıyor. Çünkü devleti insandan ayrı bir yapı olarak değil; toplu halde yaşamak zorunda olan insanların bir araya gelmesinin doğal sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan insansı bir organizma olarak görüyor. Dolayısıyla daha büyük bir organizma olan devlette, iyinin de kötünün de daha kolayca görülebileceğini ve bunun da insana kolaylıkla uygulanabileceğini düşünüyor. Mesela, Platon'a göre insan ruhu nasıl üç birimden oluşuyorsa (akıl, coşku, arzu) devletin de üç ayrı birimi bulunuyor. (yöneticiler, muhafızlar, halk) Ayrıca nasıl 'doğru' bir insanda bu birimler dengede olursa, adil bir devlette de bunların mutlak surette ölçülü olması gerekiyor.

İlk bölümlerde toplumun bu üç bölümünün ikisinin (halkın ve muhafızların) doğalarına göre nasıl tasnif edilmesi ve eğitilmesi gerektiğini okuyoruz. Eğitimin ve düşüncenin en büyük yasa olduğu, eşitlikçi olmayan (buna inanmayan) fakat adil olan; bu anlamda kesinlikle özgürlükçü değil fakat doğrunun ve aklın yolunda giden 'kontrolcu' bir devlet yaratıyor Platon.

Ünlü 'mağara alegorisini' içeren daha sonraki bölümlerde ise, 'filozof'un kim olduğunu ve neden devlet yönetiminin ona verilmesi gerekliliğini okuyoruz. Platon'a göre filozof az önce bahsettiğimiz cismel varlıkların ötesini görebilen, yani onların idealarına vakıf olan, kısacası 'iyi'yi bilen kişiye deniyor. İşte bu sebeple yöneticinin ya da yöneticilerin maddiyata, bayağı şeylere tok, yalnız hakikate aç olan bu kimseler olması gerekiyor. Burada da Platon'un halkın çok küçük kesimini oluşturan bu yöneticilerin yaşama şekillerini kesin sınırlarla belirlediğini görüyoruz.

Son bölümlerde ise Platon farklı yönetim biçimlerini tartışıp, bunların iyiden kötüye sıralamasını yapıyor. Burada Demokrasiyi, en kötü yönetim biçimi olan Tiranlıktan hemen önceye koyarken, onun görünüşte hoş olan ama insan tabiatına aykırı ve kaygan olan 'özgürlük, eşitlik' gibi niteliklerini yeriyor. Platon, onu mutlak özgürlükle birlikte mutlak zorbalığın tohumlarını da içinde taşıdığı güvenilmez bir sistem olarak resmediyor. Bu sistemdeki cehaletin, yozlaşmanın ve hatta sokak hayvanlarının bile 'aşırı' özgürlüğünün absürtlüğünden bahseden Platon, bugün çekmekte olduğumuz Demokrasi sancılarının sebeplerini binlerce yıl öteden açıklıyor.

It is widely believed that The Republic by Plato is essential reading for anybody who takes philosophy seriously, and now I understand why. Its dialogues set the tone for all subsequent Western philosophy and made an honest search for the truth seem cool (at least for me). As in many of Plato’s works, Socrates is the protagonist. He’s the one who goes up to everybody and starts arguments, asking many questions and pointing out inconsistencies. Some people give him a hard time, but I have a huge amount of admiration for his legacy; I wish I could go back in time and philosophize with him. More people should look to Socrates and use debate for truth-seeking rather than just winning arguments. When you find the truth, both sides win.

Part I starts with Socrates leading a debate with several other men on what the definitions of justice and injustice are. Everybody has slightly different ideas, but Socrates is able to persuade everyone but Thrasymachus, who believes that justice is the interest of the stronger. Part II continues their debate about justice, with Thrasymachus arguing that individuals benefit from unjust acts, and Socrates claiming that society as a whole benefits from justice. This is the closest thing that I’ve seen to a heated debate in Socratic dialogues.

Part III is concerned with education. The Republic was written in 380 B.C., before the time of Christ, and much of their theology was derived from ancient Greek poets like Homer. Their discussion was about what types of poetry young people should be exposed to. They agreed that it should express courage and strength, rather than the “woe is me” type poetry that might encourage weakness. I believe this is also the section where they discussed music theory and which modes were proper. I learned all the modes on guitar when I was younger, and I still use them. Each mode has its own personality, as Plato describes. They also agreed that males and females should receive the same education, which is fascinating considering how many societies throughout history have been patriarchal.

In Parts IV and V, they discuss how the members of society will be happy in filling their appropriate roles, whether it be leader or auxiliary. They should have specialized jobs so that they can become experts in their fields and more efficient. There will be no “jack-of-all-trades” in this society. It may be hard to live up to this ideal, but Plato’s goal seems to be justice and equality. Part VI discusses the family. Women can have the same jobs as men, as long as it is fitting. But the family must be abolished, so that everyone will treat each other the same, without preferential treatment. Also, this will help the State to breed ideal citizens.

Part VII deals with the famous “Allegory of the Cave” which compares ignorance to seeing shadows on the wall of a cave, rather than seeing the actual objects. The “philosopher king” must be brought up to be able to see the actual objects and not just the shadows. Part VIII, my favorite section, discusses the four unjust constitutions. They are timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. He believes that the philosopher king is superior to any of these forms of government. I enjoyed this section because of how it relates to today’s governments.

Part IX is where everything starts to come full circle as we approach our conclusion. He points out how because the tyrannical man has so much inner conflict, his selfishness cannot make him happier than the philosopher king. It is virtue in itself that makes the philosopher happy. In this, he is taking one more jab at Thrasymachus’s argument. Part X is a bizarre detour into how poetry doesn’t help society. I disagree with this section, but I guess it's just a product of its time. Part XI is a beautiful conclusion discussing reincarnation and how people get to choose their next life after they die. The Republic was an amazing book and an inspiration.

I'm so jealous of Bill and Ted!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvYRq...

Ralph Waldo Emerson đã viết về Plato như sau: “Plato chính là triết học, triết học chính là Plato..." Ý, khoan, bác cho con nói đế một câu này: "... nhưng có lẽ bản dịch tiếng Việt của cuốn Cộng hòa không phải là... triết học lẫn Plato".
Thế thì nó là gì, là gì?!
Nó là tổng hòa tất cả những uất ức của mình trong hơn một tháng, là dấu tích còn sót của 1000 năm Bắc thuộc, thuở ông cha ta bắt buộc phải nắm vững tiếng Hán nếu muốn đọc sách thánh hiền @@ Để đọc xong cuốn sách này, điều bạn cần có không phải là vốn kiến thức triết học, chính trị hay năng lực đọc hiểu cao cấp gì cả, mà là ý chí! Bạn phải cực kỳ kiên trì!
Khi đọc, lúc nào não tôi cũng ở trong tình trạng quá tải khi phải chạy song song hai chương trình giải mã: 1 là để hiểu thâm ý của Plato, 2 là hiểu thâm ngữ của dịch giả. Một nùi đại từ chỉ ngôi dạng Hán - việt - cổ lỗ sĩ xuất hiện dày đặc ngay từ những trang đầu tiên: ngô bối, tiểu điệt, bản nhân, tiên sinh, quý hữu, lão hủ, lão nhân, bỉ nhân, hiền điệt, quý nhân, bỉ phu, tiện nhân,... Ai không thông thạo nghĩa những từ này thì thôi, cắp dép lên nách mà chạy nhanh đi, bạn sẽ không biết ai đang phát biểu hay phản đối ý kiến của ai đâu. Nhưng dù có bỏ công tra cứu như tôi thì cũng không chắc sẽ hiểu được cách dùng từ của tác giả. Đỉnh cao là từ "ngô bối", tôi cứ có cảm tưởng tác giả dùng từ này để chỉ cả 3 ngôi: thứ nhất, thứ hai, thứ ba luôn. Tôi là con trạch nữ mê Khổng - Lão - Trang, Hồng Lâu Mộng, Tam Quốc Chí, cũng bỏ bụng được 1000 chữ Hán mà lúc đọc Cộng hòa chỉ muốn khóc thôi!
Chưa hết, các đoạn hội thoại trong Cộng hòa khi qua tay dịch giả còn mang một đặc điểm rất kì cục khác. Ấy là, một mặt thì dịch giả đã bỏ công dùng rất nhiều từ Hán Việt, dùng đại từ chỉ ngôi kiểu kiếm hiệp để tôn lên (?!) tính quý tộc của những người tham gia vấn đáp cũng như bản chất vấn đề nhưng ngược lại, ngay sau đó lại xuất những từ dễ tạo cảm giác "xấc xược" trong giao tiếp thường ngày! Cụ thể, khi muốn tóm tắt nội dung hoặc xác nhận ý kiến của đối phương, dịch giả thích để Plato kết thúc câu bằng "... chứ gì?", còn phần lớn câu hỏi của ông lại thường được kết thúc bởi ".. không hả/hả/hở?" Hơn hai mươi năm nói cũng như nghe đồng bào tôi nói tiếng Việt trong lãnh thổ Việt Nam, trừ phi là bạn bè trêu ghẹo hoặc người yêu nũng nịu nhau, còn lại tôi chưa thấy ai nói chuyện theo cái kiểu ấy cả!

Thôi, càu nhàu về bản dịch thế cũng là đủ rồi :((( Nhưng tôi chỉ muốn phân trần là tôi đã thử đủ 69 tư thế để đọc cuốn cuốn sách này: nằm sấp, nằm ngửa, ngồi dựa vào tường, ngồi xếp bằng, đến nhà bạn đọc, đọc trên xe bus, đọc trên trường, đọc trước lúc ngủ, đọc ngay sau khi thức dậy, đọc buổi trưa buổi chiều, đọc ngang, đọc dọc, đọc theo thứ tự rồi nhảy trang tùy hứng... nhưng cuối cùng tôi cũng đành phải buông xuôi, dù không nỡ. Nếu tập trụng vào đọc mấy đoạn dài dài trong sách thì còn đỡ, lại thấy quan điểm về một nhà nước lí tưởng của mình chỗ này chỗ kia cũng giống Plato phết, nhưng nhìn chung thì... Huhu :((((((

كم قتلونا بما أسموه: واقعية!
حولونا إلى آلات، وفي كثير من الأحيان -أعتذر- حيوانات، وصوروا لنا المثالية أحلامًا يهواها المنفصلون عن الحياة وواقعيتها.. وبالفعل تشكلت هذه المكررات ثقافةً أصبحنا عليها لنبيت على تطبيقاتها، فقُتل العقل القيمي الواقعي في أعلى درجات المثالية، وبقيت فلسفة الصراع وفنون الغلبة تارة بالإقصاء السافر، وتارة أخرى كما هي بعض المذاهب البرمجية اليوم بالتلون والمخادعات الأخلاقية.

أفلاطون.. كان عقلًا تحليليًا فلسفيًا يعي ما يقول بواقعية مثالية لم أجد كمالها في غير الطرح الإسلامي الرصين، وهذا ما يظهر من التقديم العلمي للأستاذ أحمد المنياوي في كتابه: (جمهورية أفلاطون، المدينة الفاضلة كما تصورها فيلسوف الفلاسفة).

في تصوري أنَّ الكتاب مناسب إلى أن يكون تقديمًا لمحاورات أفلاطون التي أجراها على لسان أستاذه سقراط وألسنة مجموعة من تلامذته، ولذلك فهو ليس بالكتاب البحثي النقدي، وربَّما كان من حسن التوفيق أنَّني قد قرأت المحاورات كاملة قبل سنتين أو أكثر، فبدت الصورة لي أكثر وضوحًا.

ينطلق أفلاطون في نظريته من الضرورة بالمعنى التكويني الفلسفي للعدالة في قيام المجتمع الفاضل الذي يقسمه مكونه البشري إلى ثلاثة أقسام بحسب القوى النفسانية (الشهوانية والغضبية والعاقلة)، ويرى أنَّ تشكيل الدولة ينبغي أن يضبط انطلاقًا من هذه القوى، فيكون الحكم للفلاسفة والحماية العسكرية لأصحاب العاطفة من الشجعان باعتبار أنَّ الشجاعة محلُّها القلب، وأمَّا القوة الاقتصادية فيوكل أمرها لمن غلبت شهواتهم الدنيوية على طباعهم.

ولأنَّ الطغيان قدر محتوم، فإنَّ هذه الشرائح لا تُترك بلا قانون يحكمها، وبذلك يرى فيلسوف المدينة الفاضلة أنَّ السلطة في جمهوريتة عبارة عن منظومة دائرية تكون فيها السلطة في كل حلقة منها فاعلة كمصدر من جهة وفاعلة في قابل من جهة أخرى.

ومن أجلِّ ما وجدتِه في النظرية الأفلاطونية رؤيتها المثالية التحليلية الواقعية لطرحة الديموقراطية، فهي تعارضها وتراها أداة لشرعنة الاستبداد، وهذا ما أدعو لتأمله تأمُّلًا جادًّا.

أنصح بقراءة هذا الكتاب قراءة موضوعية هادئة، فأفلاطون محطَّة ظلمتها دعاوى التعقل، وأقصتها شعارات الواقعية.

115th book of 2021.

It’s no secret that Plato isn’t fool-proof. A lot of the arguments within the 400 or so pages of Republic are what one might call a ‘stretch’—Plato has some (mostly) friendly men to converse with who are very fond of telling him how brilliant he is and how his points are well-founded. The truth is, this does not happen in arguments, because there are always two people (or is this only in my own case?) trying to prove their own viewpoints, and in the end they both resist and persist so much that it frizzles out or they become sore with one another, or both. If I were to sit down with some friends and attempt something like Republic, it would be anarchy and we would probably not agree on a single thing. The idea that just two people could settle on creating a utopian society through dialogue is almost unfathomable. But where we cannot imagine it in real life, we can read it about it here in Plato, and, surprisingly, enjoy it as we do so.

As ever, Socrates is the ‘I’ of Republic, Plato’s mentor. The question at the heart of this book is simply, Why be moral when immortality seems to benefit more? What’s the point in being good?


Socrates, photo taken by me several weeks ago in the British Museum.

The book is comprised of 14 dialogues*, all of which are fairly similar to other dialogues I've read by Plato, particularly the first few. Though some I disagree with, there are many parts of the dialogues that I respect and some that, if nothing else, I find interesting to consider. In Chapter IV, Socrates says,
n  

'The point is that a young person can't tell when something is allegorical and when it isn't, and any idea admitted by a person of that age tends to become almost ineradicable and permanent. All things considered, then, that is why a very great deal of importance should be placed upon ensuring that the first stories they hear are best adapted for their moral improvement.'

n
This is one of those 'if nothing else, I find interesting to consider' moments. I work with children a lot of the time when teaching and often baulk at things they allude to, be it TV Shows or certain video games they have seemed to have played at an early age. Already this singular line from Socrates could spin an entire web of arguments about what to tell your child/what they can watch/what they can do. I know a mother who refused anyone reminding her children, even when her children were nearing 10-years-old, where the meat on their plate came from. Chapter IV had many parts that I underlined, particularly when Socrates said, 'I mean, it's a good mind that makes someone good.' This line of thought reminds me of Harold Bloom in his defence of reading classics, reading only the best literature has to offer because what you own in your head through reading, also owns you. Socrates concludes Chapter IV after discussing a balance of physical education and cultural education (too much of the former makes one brutal, too much of the latter makes one docile) with 'it's the person who makes the best blend of physical exercise and culture, and who applies them to the mind in the right proportions, whom we should really describe as a virtuoso and as having the most harmony in his life.' It reminds me of something Kierkegaard once wrote,
n  

I have walked myself into my best thoughts, and I know of no thought so burdensome that one cannot walk away from it…but by sitting still, and the more one sits still, the closer one comes to feeling ill…Thus if one just keeps on walking, everything will be all right.

n
The book is too rich to attempt to review without writing incessantly for hours, and having further conversations off each point from the book. Here are some quotes I underlined:
''Isn't the phrase "self-mastery" absurd? I mean, anyone who is his own master is also his own slave''
''So, Glaucon,' I said, 'it seems likely that this is in a sense what morality is—doing one's own job.''
''But it's like this: it makes no difference whether you fall into a little pool or into the middle of the largest ocean—you're still swimming.''
''Unless communities have philosophers as kings,' I said, 'or the people who are currently called kings and rulers practise philosophy with enough integrity [...] there can be no end to political trouble.''
''So because a philosopher's links are with a realm which is divine and orderly, he becomes as divine and orderly as is humanly possible.''
''It is, in fact, really hard for people to have confidence in the fact that studying this kind of subject cleans and re-ignites a particular mental organ which everyone has (while other occupations ruin it and blind it), and that this organ is a thousand times more worth preserving that any eye, since it is the only organ which can see truth.''

As for answering the central question, I will speak nothing of it here. The final Chapter was perhaps the best, a Dante like experience and explanation of where the souls go after death including my favourite Greek figure, Odysseus himself, as an example. I would recommend Republic for this final part alone. The rest of the book isn't always sound in its debate, but it is almost always readable and enjoyable, considering the reputation the book has as being one of the cornerstones of Western philosophy and literature. As far as reading Plato for the first time goes, Symposium is far, far, shorter and in some ways better, surrounded around the idea of love and what love is, something everyone can relate to faster than the idea of morality, politics and state as seen in these pages. I feel fairly happy with what I've read of Plato now and can move onto reading some Aristotle at last. I would love to end the review with some allusion to the end of the book, with Odysseus' choice when choosing a new soul and what that means for the rest of us and our lives and how we can learn from his choice, but that would be spoiling it; and the more beautiful something is, the worse a crime it is to spoil it.
____________________________________

*1. Convention Under Attack
2. The Challenge to Socrates
3. Fundamentals of Inner Politics
4. Primary Education for the Guardians
5. The Guardians' Life and Duties
6. Inner and Outer Morality
7. Women, Children, and Warfare
8. Philosopher Kings
9. The Supremacy of Good
10. Educating Philosopher Kings
11. Warped Minds, Warped Societies
12. Happiness and Unhappiness
13. Poetry and Unreality
14. Rewards Now and Hereafter

man was so smart he was stupid

he’s the og male manipulator

Learned a lot about ancient Greek culture. Plato makes Socrates a mental giant of his age while talking about his fantasy Republic.