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.

Let me tell you about this book. Well, I don't recall it much; I only recall the angst it caused me for in my first year of college there were only two classes left that looked somewhat interesting. First time; last served. I took Philosophy 101 and Child Psychology.

I walked into my philosophy class and thought it was really going to be interesting. The teacher, Mr. Flores, spoke in broken English. No one told me that I could drop out of a class, so I sat there. I couldn't take notes because I didn't know what he was saying. I read this book, and I was still struggling. A student suggested Cliffs Notes. They helped. The test didn't include anything in the book, what it included was his lectures. But with the help of the Notes, I got a C in the class. I didn't even know then that I could take the class over and change that grade.

And one other thing happened in the class. I was always afraid to speak in public, but Mr. Flores said that we had to give a speech. It didn't matter how short or how long it was. If we gave it we would pass. I found a cartoon, and I got up in front of the class. This is what happened: "This is a theological question. Is there life after death? I don't know if there is life before death." I went to sit down, and a student said, "Don't you consider yourself part of this rat race?" I said, "What rat race?" Then the professor said, "That was using the system." And another student said, "Does she get credit for that?" "Yes," he said. And I smiled.

But maybe taking the class helped me in other ways, for I knew then that I needed to get a lot of As in order to get rid of that C, and when I quit going to college 12 years later, I had a 3.38 grade point average. I still needed more As. I never graduated because I didn't want to take some required classes. So I spent those years changing majors and taking whatever sounded good. I considered myself a college bum and just quit when I was burned out. Now I just read books I like.

جمهورية أفلاطون
.

ترجمة حنا خباز
مراجعة احمد زياد
طباعة دار الرافدين
عدد الصفحات 543
.
جمهورية افلاطون او المدينة الفاضلة
.
من هو أفلاطون

وُلد أرسطوقليس بن أرستون في أثينا عام ٤٢٧ق.م تقريبًا، واشتُهر باسم «أفلاطون» الذي يُعبِّر عن ضخامة الجسد. تَربَّى في عائلةٍ أرستقراطية مثقفة اهتمَّت بتربيته بدنيًّا وفكريًّا، بدأ حياته بالتعلُّم من السفسطائيين ومن أحد تلامذة هرقليطس، وبعدها قابل مُعلمه سقراط ولازمه حتى صدور حكم الإعدام الجائر للمعلم؛ الأمر الذي جعله يرى الفسادَ في نظام الحكم وضرورة أن تكون الفلسفة أساسًا لهذا النظام، وهو ما دفعه للقيام برحلته الكبرى من أجل البحث عن الحكمة؛ فسافر إلى مصر وزار إقليدس وتعلم من كهنة عين شمس، ثم إلى قورينا والتقى بالعالِم الرياضي المشهور تيودورس وتعلم الشعر والموسيقى والرياضيات والفلك … واستمرت رحلاتُه اثني عشر عامًا، عاد بعدها إلى أثينا مسقط رأسه إنسانًا ناضجًا تمامًا، وأسَّس فيها مدرستَه الفلسفية، وانقطع بعدها للكتابة والتعليم.

تُوفِّي أفلاطون عام ٣٤٧ق.م بعدما وضع أُسُس الفلسفة المثالية وترك أثرًا في الإنسانية لا يُمحى.

.
مقدمة :
أستند الباحث السوري حنا خباز في ترجمته لهذا الكتاب الى مقارنة ثلاثة من الترجمات الانجليزية وهي (تيلر، دافيس وفوغان، سنبس) وكتب اول ترجمة للجمهورية في عام 1929.
.
التلخيص:
واحد من أثمن الكتب المؤسِّسة للفكر السياسي التي تحقق مفهوم العدالة من منظور أفلاطون وهو من الكتب التي تعتبر أقدم تراث فلسفي قبل الميلاد بنحو أربعة عقود.
وهي مجموعة تتضمن عشرة كتب او ابواب تتناول الاسس التي من شأنها ان توجد المدينة الفاضلة بحسب اعتقاد افلاطون تلميذ الفيلسوف سقراط وهي تاتي في هيئة حوار بين سقراط وبعض مريديه (سيفاليس، بوليمارخس، غلوكون، أديمنس، تراسيماخس) وهو الاسلوب الذي كان يعتمده سقراط في حواراته وقد نقل هذا الحوار المُتخيل الفيلسوف أفلاطون والذي كان احد تلامذته وشهد إعدامه وهو في سن التاسعة والعشرون وقد كان له الدور البارز في تشكيل هذه المنهجية في فلسفته.
.
يرى أفلاطون بان المدينة الفاضلة لا تقوم الا بتوافر شروط عديدة تبدأ من اختيار الفلاسفة للحكم ومن ثم تقسيم المواطنين في الدولة لفئات يتخصص كلً منه بدوره في مهام ووظائف محددة تمنع تعدد الاختصاص كما يرى بانه يجب ان يتم تربية الابناء عبر اختيار دقيق لوالديهم وشيوعية الاختلاط ليتعذر على كل أبن أن يعرف والداه او يعرف الاباء ابناءهم حتى لا يتم التمييز بينهم ويقصى الابناء الاخرين ممن هم دون مستوى الكفاءة في اختيار الابوين!! كما واستعرض خمس انواع من الدول وحكامها ايضاً وكانت الدولة الأرستقراطية هي الحكومة الأفضل من وجهة نظره.
.
وهنا مجموعة من الأسئلة التي تطرح نفسه هو هل المدينة الفاضلة وفق معايير أفلاطون هي فعلاً فاضلة؟! هل من المحتمل أن توجد تلك المدينة وفق ما ذكره من مميزات لها؟! وهل بامكانها التصدي للعقبات آلتي ستواجهها ؟!
.
اترك الاجابة عن هذه الأسئلة لك عزيزي القارىء



التقييم

من الصعب تقييم عمل عميق كهذا العمل والذي أصبح من الأعمال الخالدة ومنهجاً لكل الفلاسفة عبر العصور

رغم المبالغة بالمثالية بعض الأمور مقارنةً بوجودها على أرض الواقع الا ان جمالية الكتاب في وجهة نظري هي أسلوب السرد الحواري فيه والتحليل المتراكم والمتتابع حيث تخرج من استنتاج لتدخل في آخر وهو أكثر ما أعجبني في الكتاب

#جمهورية_أفلاطون #حنا_خباز #دار_الرافدين

المراجعة على الانستقرام

https://www.instagram.com/p/CPLR-KAhT...

Bolesnici kad su bolesni kažu da nema ništa prijatnijeg od zdravlja, ali prije nego što su se razbolili oni nisu znali da je zdravlje najprijatnije.

Uvijek me lijepo osjećanje spopadne pri čitanju Platona. Njegova misao je jasna i budna, oštra i jednostavna. Iako ,,Država" napisana oko 380. prije n.e. njena relevantnost i viđenje ne smije da se dovede danas u pitanje. Koliko samo ova knjiga odjekuje i danas, i odjekivaće. Na trenutke se može izvući kontekst i reći da se Platon obraća pojedincu, a ne grupama, ne državi. Takva jedna država može postati idealna, tek kad pojedinac sebe učini idealnim; sada samo zavisi po čijoj mjeri. Ali ako te stvari koje on pripisuje kao važnim za pojedinca - uzmemo kao univerzalne, onda možemo reći da se država kroji onako kako sebe pojedinac kroji. Bez ikakvog ogoljenog politikanstva ikomješanja raznih podlih nameta, Platon problemu države pristupa temeljno, obrađuje strukturu čovjeka te njegovu kulturološku pozadinu stavlja u blokove svoje države.

Naime Platon često ističe fizičko i muzičko vaspitanje. Pojačavanjem ovog drugog ublažava se ovo prvo, fizičko vaspitanje, i tako individua postiže balans između onoga što se zove snaga, smjelost, i onoga što zovemo prijatelja razuma. I jedno i drugo je jako važno. Zapravo mnogi pojedinci žele da promjene svijet ili državu u kojoj žive, a sebe ne žele da promjene i tako se pojavljuje velika neskladnost između onoga što treba da bude i onoga što jeste. Fizičko i muzičko vaspitanje treba da budu predigra za pravednost. Gotovo pet knjiga je unutar države posvjećeno pravednosti. Platon pravednost gleda u hrabrosti, mudrosti i umjerenosti, što je koherentno s njegovim opisivanjen fizičkog i muzičkog vaspitanja; ili u najboljem rečeno država i ljudski životi su neraskidivi. Zapravo, čitavu knjigu treba uzetu kao cjelokupnu koherentnost, kod Platona se sve veže jedno s drugim. Potom Platon pravi modele i nijedan model državnog uređenja, po mom mišljenju nije srećno prošao, jer svi vode kao onom najgorem, bilo da se radi o timokratiji, oligarhiji, demokratiji ili tiraniji.

Mit o pećini zauzima zaista jedno posebno mjesto u knjizi, kao i okretanje vretena oko koljena Ananke, koje iznačava kosmološko viđene onoga što je bilo, što jeste i što će biti.

Sve u svemu, ne postoji idealna država niti će se takva pojaviti. I ova knjiga ne treba da služi kao neki teoretski vodič za njeno tobožnje postizanje. Svaki njen čitalac bi trebao da iz nje izvuče ono najvažnije, npr. fizičko i muzičko vaspitanje i otpočne dijelovanje istog. Knjiga samo tako može da ima korist, a i po samog pojedinca će to biti korisno. U suprotnom, ova knjiga će tek poslužiti umnožavanju nekih istorijskih ideja, koje će jedni nazvati ,,prevaziđenim" a drugi ,,ništavnim."

Along with the Laws, the Republic is Plato's formula for an optimal society. Both works really strike me as early examples of utopian literature. As a whole, that genre doesn't interest me, but Plato has some profound ideas in this work, along with some highly impractical ones.
It is interesting that Plato thought an optimal, or maybe even perfect, society was possible. He was fully aware of the reality of human corruption and for systems to degrade over time. Given that, he should probably have had the forethought to see that no system, even if perfect, would remain so for an indefinite period of time, or even for a considerable period of time. It is highly likely that various clandestine movements and orders were inspired by works like this to actually put into practice some of these utopianist notions. The incipient Rosicrucian movement was highly utopianist with a very similar societal agenda. Whether Plato really thought his ideas should be put into practice, or whether he was just speculating, is difficult to determine. Plato took an almost opposite stance in the dialogues Timaeus and Critias where the myth of Atlantis is laid out. He intimates that the society of Atlantis was, for all intents and purposes, an ideal society, but through the corruption of leadership and hubris that society was deemed a blight on humanity and on the world and was eventually destroyed by the gods. Apparently, Plato was not unaware of the near impossibility of even a society as nearly perfect as Atlantis was, to be above eventual corruption and divine judgment. The myth of Atlantis bears some marked similarities to the biblical story of Nimrod and Babylon in Genesis and it's reappearance in Revelation. The similarities, in fact, are rather striking. Taking into account all of the above, Plato seemed to understand the unlikelihood of a perfect society ever existing; and even if one could, the dangers inherent in it. Plato seems to intimate even here that the closer a society (or a person) gets to perfection, the greater the risk of corruption becomes and for it to become the polar opposite of perfect. All the potential for good becomes means for evil. Plato was very astute in understanding political models and was also aware of the risks involved with those models. The Hellenistic states had been subject to various models of government and all were shown to be lacking. Plato saw in democracy a freedom leading to sloth and moral laxity. Indeed, eventually democracies become dictatorships. How this relates to this country I leave to the reader to extrapolate.
The Republic is an essential Platonic dialogue. I give the work 5 stars, but Cornford 3. Over all rating of 4 stars. Cornford regularly omits text for no apparent reason, which was highly annoying. It made me consult another source a number of times. There was no reason I could see that justified Cornford's regular omissions. The book would not have been of much greater length if he had included them.

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.

✩ 2.5/3 stars
~
[read for high school ‘sophomore year’ great books class]
~
the only thing that having to read this did for me is getting bragging rights!
~
this is my mortal enemy!
~
i had to read it for sophomore year great books class, it made me want to die…
~
the class discussions were fun but thats the only quirk besides me getting bragging rights which i deserve bc i hate that book sm!
~
and yes i did finish it bc of the fact that i barely survived i can say i read it

3/5 ★★★☆☆

Nothing against philosophy but this book really drained my mental faculties. It was challenging sometimes to grasp the slippery threads that Socrates wanted to weave inside his readers' heads, not because they were inherently complex but solely because of his method of going about things or reaching those conclusions.

It took me

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 Candide, "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.)
.

Fascinating and enjoyable are not how I would have described reading Plato’s Republic. I’ve had this on my tbr since 2016, I’ve always imagined this would be impossible to understand, turgid and really, really hard work but instead it was the complete opposite. It was Robin Waterfield’s introduction that spoke to me first. It seemed to have perceived my dread in the assurances it gave to make this less difficult for me. This helped, boosted my confidence, though I did keep a second translation by Desmond Lee nearby, which now and then I referred to.

And what a read this is, so unexpected, I didn’t grasp everything but I was okay with this as I intend to read this several times more. There were also parts that were eye-opening, some I didn’t know how to think about and then there were the other parts that I disagreed with, but I’m putting this to one side for now to read more about Plato, his contemporaries, and ancient history of other parts of the world.

বইটা পইড়া ভালো লাগছে। কঠিন বিষয়বস্তু সহজ সাবলীল ভাষায় অনুবাদ করছেন সরদার সাব।
যুক্তিনির্ভর সংলাপের মাধ্যমে ন্যায়ের আলাপ দিয়া বই এর শুরু। এরপর ন্যায়রে বৃহৎ পরিসরে আবিষ্কার করার উদ্দেশ্যে রাষ্ট্রগঠন করছেন প্লেটো। রাষ্ট্রে ন্যায়ের অবস্থান আবিষ্কার করতে পারলে রাষ্ট্র যেসব মানুষ নিয়া গঠন হয় তার মধ্যেও ন্যায়রে খুইজা পাওন যাইবো এই তার বিশ্বাস।
যুক্তিনির্ভর এই আলাপ আলোচনা পড়তে ভালো লাগলেও আমার মন সন্দেহপ্রবন হইয়া আছে। আমার মন তার যুক্তির বিরুদ্ধে কোন প্রতিযুক্তি খাড়া করাইতে পারে নাই। তয় আমার ধারণা এই পদ্ধতি সঠিক না। যুক্তির ধরণটা ছোটবেলায় শোনা সুপরিচিত যুক্তির মতো মনে হইলো। গরু ঘাস খায়,মানুষ গরু খায়। তাইলে মানুষ ঘাস খায়।

"لكل شيء وظيفة خاصة به فكما أن للعين وظيفة لا تشاركها فيها الأذن، و فضيلتها بأدائها لهذه الوظيفة، كذلك يكون للنفس وظ��فة هي الحياه و فضيلتها في حسن توجهها للحياة لتبلغ السعادة، و ما العدالة الا فضيلتها التي هي وسيلتها الى الحياة السعيده".