(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classic" books for the first time, then write reports on whether or not I think they deserve the label

Essay #11: The Republic, by Plato (~360 BC)

The story in a nutshell:
For those who don't know, the last 2,500 years of Western civilization can be roughly broken down into three eras, or "Ages;" the one we're in the middle of right now, the "Modern Age," actually began around the year 1400 or so with what we now call the "Renaissance," in which humanity slowly rediscovered the ideas and philosophies of ancient Greece and other so-called "enlightened societies" from the dawn of written history. (The era of those societies, then, is known as the "Classical Age;" the years between these two eras is known as the "Middle Age" or "Dark Age," in that these were the years such information was lost and forgotten in the first place.) Of all these thinkers and playwrights and architects and scientists of ancient Greece, then, perhaps none was more influential than a man named Socrates, who in our modern days we would call both an educator and philosopher; although he never actually wrote down any of his thoughts about life, his fanboy students did on a voracious basis, including a disciple named Plato who became the most famous of them during the Renaissance, because of so many of his original manuscripts making it through the chaotic times of the Dark Age*.

The Republic, for example, which would be better translated in our modern language to Society, is one of the more important of the dozens of Plato's books to still exist; it is one of the first books in Western culture, in fact, to tackle the very question of what a society is, of how to best organize one, and how to lay the long-term plans to make such a "republic" stable and violence-free. For example, the whole first part of the book tackles nothing else but what Socrates saw as the fundamental question behind all societies, that of "justice;" of how we as an organized group of people determine what exactly is "fair," what exactly is "right" and "wrong," and how we go about not only formally defining that but also enforcing it on a society-wide basis. That then gets the group talking about the creation of laws, which gets into the subject of who in a society is best qualified to write and determine such laws; this gets the reader into what most consider part 2 of the book, an examination of what we today would call not only lawyers but also politicians, philosophers and educators. (Plato and his peers, in fact, believed that the enlightened citizen should be all of these things at once; it's only in our modern times that we split them into four different professions.) This then gets us into part 3 of The Republic, a detailed examination of four popular types of society that were around at the time; this is what gets us our modern definitions of timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny, and of course the dozens of other government types that have since been invented by later philosophers.

And then finally, the way Socrates and his students actually discuss and arrive at these conclusions is through what is now known as the "Socratic Method," a fancy term for something most people will immediately understand; it's simply the process of teaching through talking and asking questions, guiding a student through a series of answers into discovering the wisdom of that topic on their own. Anytime a public school teacher discusses a subject out loud in a classroom, for example, then calls on a student to answer a question about the subject, that technically is the Socratic Method.

The argument for it being a classic:
Dude, it's a 2,200-year-old book that's still being read on a daily basis; if that's not the definition of a classic, fans say, then what is? Much more importantly than this, though, The Republic and other Classical books of philosophy virtually defined how nearly the entire western half of the planet currently conducts its business; all modern free-market representational democracies, after all, are fundamentally based on the ideas of the "Enlightenment" philosophers of the 1700s, and their ideas originally came from the ideas of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and others. There's nothing like reading the actual source material, fans of Classical literature will tell you, if you want a deep understanding of the principles guiding all of Western culture; this one single book, for example, laid the groundwork for how over half the world's governments now operate, making it the very definition of a book you should read before you die.

The argument against:
Of course, let's not forget the price of reading a 2,200-year-old book of philosophy, which is that much of it is out-of-date by now; in fact, there's an entire litany of terms in The Republic that a reader must put air quotes around each time they come across, with "democracy" for example not meaning nearly the same thing to Plato that it means to us, nor "republic," nor "equality," nor "freedom." Two thousand years is a long time to be able to tweak and build on a certain set of specific ideas, let's not forget; in fact, most of the incremental improvements we make to government anymore are based on principles from merely a half-century or so ago, which themselves were the product of the 75th or 80th generation of small improvements that have now been made over the centuries to Plato and Socrates' original ideas. Because of all this, critics say, a book like The Republic is certainly historically important, certainly a must-read for anyone devoting their life or career to philosophy or government or education, but not necessarily a book that the general populace should feel a need to read themselves.

My verdict:
So let me admit right off the bat what a p-ssy I am, and that in actuality I only read something like the first hundred pages of this book; because let's face it, we live in a much more sophisticated age than Plato did, with most of us for example deeply comfortable with the Socratic Method even by the time we're done with elementary school. The Republic itself is written in the same pace one would use when explaining something to a five-year-old child, which of course Plato and his co-horts had to do back then; it was a society that was barely literate, that had never tackled these subjects before, who hadn't even invented such words as "philosophy" yet or such concepts as universities. To tell you the truth, the most interesting thing about the book was in fact the modern 50-page introduction by Desmond Lee (I read the Penguin Classics version); like many other synopses that now exist, it does a much better job than the manuscript itself at explaining the historical context that informed these ideas, as well as the outdated terminology and the words that would be better used today. Although it was definitely a fascinating book to explore and learn more about, I can't say in all honesty that I would recommend tackling the actual manuscript; much better I think to read one of the modern analyses instead, and learn more about how the book has shaped society in the two thousand years since.

Is it a classic? Yes, but skip it anyway

*And in fact, the majority of the Classical Canon would be gone forever if had been up to the Westerners themselves, who were too busy slaughtering and raping and burning down each others' cities during the Medieval period to give much of a crap about a bunch of dusty ol' books; it was mostly the scholars of the Middle East who saved the majority of these manuscripts, by translating them into Arabic and incorporating them into their own great libraries at Alexandria (in modern Egypt), Babylon (in modern Iraq), and more. Bitter irony, I know, considering the way the majority of Middle East states have been treated by the majority of Western nations over the last couple of hundred years.

What do you mean by x, y and z?

If you stop people in the street and show them how little thought they've put into their own understanding of the world, I can see why people would be angry and you'd end up on trial. Socrates was the renowned for doing it, he made people feel stupid and the state ordered him to the choose between renouncing his beliefs or drinking the cup of hemlock. He chose death.

Luckily, Plato recorded his method and in this book the people who engage in Socratic dialogue are much more interested in gaining knowledge than appearing to be the masters of it. 450 pages of pure dialogue can be at times repetitive and I'm not really a fan of generalization, but overall, I found this book useful and enjoyable even now, approx. 2400 years after it was written.

یکی از فوق‌العاده ترین کتابهایی که تا بحال خوندم .. گرچه سبک فلسفی کتاب باعث شد تا بخش هایی رو با سختی متوجه بشم اما طریقه استدلال افلاطون واقعا بی نظیره . تووی این کتاب افلاطون درباره عدالت صحبت میکنه .. در ابتدا افلاطون شروع به ساختن یه مدینه فاضله میکنه و با ذکر جزئیات وظیفه هر عضو این جامعه رو بررسی میکنه .. بعد از این برای شناخت مفهموم عدالت از کل به جزء برمیگرده .. مثال مشهور غار رو بیان میکنه و بعد از اون انواع حکومت رو از تیموکراسی و الیگارشی و دموکراسی و دیکتاتوری مطرح میکنه .. پس ازین ها افلاطون به موضوع هنرهای زیبا بخصوص شعر و نقاشی میپردازه و اونها رو تقلیدی از حالات نفسانی و شبحی از واقعیت معرفی میکنه که باید ازشون دوری کرد .. در نهایت افلاطون مفهوم عدالت رو معرفی میکنه و با روش خاص خودش ثابت میکنه که عدالت دقیقن هفتصد و بیست و نه بار از ظلم بهتره .. فصل آخر کتاب بگمانم زیباترین بخش کتاب هم هست .. توی کتاب دهم افلاطون روح انسان رو روحی فناناپذیر و جاودان معرفی میکنه و با نقل یه داستان از شخصی بنام ار که به دنیای مردگان رفته و برگشته جمله کلیدی کتاب رو مطرح میکنه و اون این هست که انسان در زندگی باید راه میانه و اعتدال رو در پیش بگیره و از مسیر عدالت خارج نشه .. کتاب بی نظیر و فوق‌العاده اس و باید از ترجمه خووب اقای فواد روحانی هم سپاسگزار ی کرد بخاطر معرفی این اثر باشکوه به مردم ایران ...

Bu yılki ilk kitap okuma hedefim bazı belli başlı klasikleri okumak. İşe Platon'un Devlet'i ile başladım. Okuduktan sonra insan 2 bin küsür yıllık bir eserin değeri bir daha anlaşılıyor. Platon burada hayali ve ütopya bir devlet kuruyor. Doğru nedir, eğri nedir, doğru insan hep mutsuz mu, eğri insanın yaptığı kötülük yanına kâr kalır ve mutlu mu olur gibi sorulardan yola çıkarak eğiliği ve doğruluğu tartabilecekleri bir devlet fikri kurarlar.
Ayrıntılı inceleme ve kitap özeti için: http://kitapokurum.blogspot.com/2018/...

ها أنا قد قرأت أخيراً 'جمهورية' أفلاطون، ولو طُلب مني أن أُعبِّر عن انطباعي حول جمهوريته بجملة مختصره، سأقول ما سطَّره قلمي في آخر صفحة من الكتاب:-

جمهورية أفلاطون يحكمها فيلسوف 'خيالي'، وسُكَّانها رجال آليين

****** **** ** * ** **** ******

تنقسم هذه المحاورة إلا عشرة أجزاء، أو كما اسماها المترجم عشرة كتب، كل كتاب يختص بموضوع معين يرتبط بما سبقه ارتباطاً وثيقاً ومكملاً له بتوسع، وهذه المواضيع يتحاور فيها "سقراط" مع مجموعة من الأشخاص

ما هو العدل؟ وهل الشخص العادل شخص سعيد نتيجة لعدله والظالم تعيس لظلمة؟! من هنا تنطلق المحاورة ويتدرج سقراط مع محاوريه فيها صعوداً وتوسعاً ليصل إلى مدينته الفاضلة

سقراط محاور "مستفز" فكرياً وهذا ليس بالغريب لطبيعته "الفلسفية"، تبدأ المحاورة بجدال قوي بينه وبين محاوريه ولكن بعد ذلك يستلم سقراط وحده دفة طرح السؤال والإجابة على نفسه ويقتصر دور محاوريه في الثناء، والتأكيد، وإعادة سؤاله مره أخرى ونادراً ما يتدخل شخص بسؤال يقلب دفة الحوار. هذا الأمر ليس بالمؤثر كثيراً على مدى توَّسع الحوار لعدة جوانب من القضية المطروحة فسقراط بطبيعة حواره يجادل نفسه بنفسه وهنا تكمن المتعة، فما أن نرتاح لفكرة حتى يقلبها رأساً على عقب مرة أخرى



أردت كتابة مختصر شديد لتقسيم الكتب لإعطاء فكرة لمن يريد المعرفة عن طبيعة هذه الأقسام واحترت ولم تطول هذه الحيرة، بعد قراءتي للمقدمة التي أؤجلها دائما لحين الانتهاء من قراءة الكتاب. الكتاب مقسَّم كالآتي*:-

الكتب الثلاثة الأولى: عن العدالة وتعريفها وعن كونها أساس للحضارة الإنسانية

الكتاب الرابع عن هيكلية الدولة وكيف يجب بناؤها

الكتب الثلاثة: الخامس والسادس والسابع وصلت فيها الفلسفة إلى أعلى قممها

الكتاب الثامن والتاسع عن أنواع الحُكم بصفه عامة ونفسية من يرئسها

الكتاب العاشر: استنتاج شامل لما سبق، ودور الشعر ونوعه في 'الجمهورية'، ومسألة أن البدن يفنى والروح تبقى خالدة


****** **** ** * ** **** ******


كشخصيه تعشق الكمال كانت أكثر الأجزاء متعة الكتاب الخامس والسادس والسابع، وخصوصاً خصوصاً 'السابع'. يا إلهي كم استمتعت به، وما به من حوار يبتدئ بقصة 'الكهف' وينطلق بها ليصل إلى "ترنيمة علم الجدل التي هي أصل يختص به الألمعي فقط، فالعقل المدُرك هو العقل الجدلي على الدوام*". قصة الكهف طويلة نوعاً ما ومحاولة اختصارها هنا ستصيبها في المقتل و تفرغها من جانبها الأهم ألا وهو التسلسل التصاعدي لفكرة فلسفية جمالها وقوتها يكمن في هذا الصعود التدريجي درجة درجة


****** **** ** * ** **** ******


لو أردت تقسيم جمهورية أفلاطون لثلاث أقسام رئيسية فإني سأختصر محتواها كالآتي:-
سياسياً:- صحيح أن الكمال يُمتِعْنِي ودائماً ما أسعى له ولكني شخصية واقعية لدرجة الإزعاج وأدرك أنه غاية لا تُدرك، وهذه أبرز مشاكل جمهورية أفلاطون، أقصد البعد عن الواقعية

يقول 'كلوكلون' أحد محاوري سقراط له:- [إنك نحَّاتٌ، يا سقراط، لقد صنعت لحكامنا تماثيل آيةً في الجمال]

مع أن الجملة جاءت تعبيراً عن الإعجاب الكبير بما قاله سقراط وتأييده ولكني وجدتها تعبيراً عن القصور في فعالية الفكرة. فعلاً هم كما وصفهم كلوكلون بالتماثيل، أشخاص من عالم الخيال يمتازون بالكمال المطلق الذي أرى أنه غاية لا تدرك وواقع من المستحيل تحقيقه

اقتصادياً:- هي جمهورية اقتصادها اشتراكي الذي أجده اقتصاد ظالم و الجمهورية أساسها العدل كما فهمت؟!!

اجتماعياً:-هنا العجب العجاب، والاستنفار الشديد أثناء القراءة لا أعرف كيف اختصر الموضوع بكلمة ولكن سأنقل جملة كتبتها كثيراً على صفحات هذا الجزء من الممكن أن تعطي صورة واضحة، اجتماعياً هي أشبه {بزريبة الحيوانات} أكرمكم الله، فمفهوم العائلة مختل جداً ويشترك مع الاقتصاد من جهة الاشتراكية، فلكم أن تتخيلوا ما المقصود

هنا يجب ذكر نقطة للإنصاف وهي طبيعة المجتمع في ذلك الزمن وخصوصاً وضع المرأة فيه، عندي فكرة عن الموضوع سابقاً من قراءتي لكتابين عن أرسطو وأفلاطون وعلاقتهم بالمرأة لإمام عبد الفتاح إمام في تلك الحقبة من الزمن. لكن حل سقراط جاء بان ينتقل بالمرأة وخصوصاً 'الحرة' من ظلام الحُفر إلى الجهة الأخرى من التطرف وأقصد بأن ساواها بالرجل لدرجة أن يصبح التعري أما الملأ أثناء التمارين الرياضية والمسابقات القتالية أسوة بالرجال شيء طبيعي ومن يجد فيه علة وخصوصاً من الرجال فإن العلة والخطأ أساسها في نفسه المريضة (آليين). ولكن يحسب له أنه يعتبر أول من دعا لتعليم المرأة أسوة بالرجل



****** **** ** * ** **** ******


التعريج على بعض النقاط:-

#قسًم سقراط الدول (بالعموم بعيداً عن جمهوريته) لخمسة أنواع:-
1.tالدولة الأرستقراطية:- حكومة الأفضل
2.tالدولة التيموقراطية:- حكومة الشرف
3.tالدولة الأوليغاركيَّة:- حكومة الأغنياء
4.tالدولة الديموقراطية:- حكومة الشعب
5.tالاستبدادية:- حكومة الرجل الواحد

ولكم أن تتخيلوا أن هذا الترتيب تصاعدياً هو مقياس الفساد، لم استغرب طرحة التدريجي للأنواع وصفات حاكميها ونفسيتهم ولكن استغرابي الأشد هو وصفة للدولة الديموقراطية ومساوئها، أي نعم أنها غير منزهة عن الخطأ ولكنها تعتبر أقل الحكومات شراً في نظري، مع القراءة أكثر اتضحت فكرة ما يرمي له. سقراط يعتبر أن هذه الدولة "الأعظم تنوعاً للطبائع الإنسانية والفرد يكون قادراً أن ينظم حياته الخاصة كما يريد لأنها دولة أساسها الحرية*"، إلى الآن لا توجد مشكلة على ما أعتقد ولكن للعلم تعريف سقراط للحرية هو السبب في ذمِّه لها وطرحه الغريب للموضوع

الحرية بأن تفعل ما تشاء طالما أنك لن تؤذي أحد أو تنتهك القوانين المتفق عليها هذا متفق عليه، لكن سقراط أساس طرحه هو أن الحرية هي أن تفعل ما تشاء ولا تبالي بأحد فأنت حر وأقتبس هنا أكثر الأمور تطرفاً [ ويجب أن أضيف أن لا أحد ممن لا يعرف سيصدق كيف تكون الحرية التي لدى الحيوانات التي هي تحت سيادة الإنسان. إنها ستكون أعظم بكثير في الديموقراطية منها في أيَّة دولة أخرى لأنه يحق القول: "هي الكلاب، كما يقول المثل، هي ربَّة بيتها". وتمتلك الأحصنة والحمير طريقة للسير في موازاة مع كل الحقوق والجلال للرجل الحرّ وستدهس أي شخص ممن يأتي في طريقها إذا لم تُخلَ لها الطريق. إن كل شيء جاهز ليتفجر تماماً بالحرية] ... 'عجبي' يا فيلسوف يا سقراط!!! على رأي صلاح جاهين


# في جمهورية أفلاطون هناك تكتيك حازم حتى تنجح الخطة، من طبيعة المباح والغير مباح وتصنيف السُّكان حسب طبيعتهم وتجهيزهم بدنياً وعقلياً لمهامهم. جميل كل ما ذكره ولكنه يتكلَّم عن طبيعة بشرية التي بطبعها لها شواذ يشذون عن القاعدة ولن تكتمل الصورة المطلوبة أبداً لما يريده. و لأن شرط تحقق ما يريد هو نجاح الخطة 100%، وصفت سكَّانها بالآليين في بداية مراجعتي



# لفت انتباهي الشعر المسموح به في جمهورية أفلاطون [لكن علينا أن نبقى ثابتين في حكمنا أن الترانيم إلى الآلهة و الثناءات للرجال الشهيرين الفاضلين، هي الشعر الوحيد الذي يجب أن نقبله في دولتنا. لأنك إذا تخطَّيت ذلك وسمحت لعروس الشعر المعسولة أن تدخل، إما في مقاطع شعر البطولة أو الشعر الوجداني الغنائي، بدلاً من دخول القانون وعقل البشر الذي اعتُبِرَ الأفضل على الدوام بالرِّضا المشترك، فلن يكون الحكّام في دولتنا سوى اللذة والألم]



# هذا الكتاب سيكون متعة بلا حدود لمن يهوى التعرض للأمور الفكرية بجدلية وبمسميّات ونظريات أضمن بسماعها لأول مرة بالإضافة لتفصيص للفكرة لعدة أجزاء والخوص في تفاصيلها


#لا أعرف لماذا أحسست أن سقراط لو عاصر الإسلام لأسلم فوراً


# قرأت المحاورة بترجمة جيدة جداً لشوقي داود تمراز


# لماذا ثلاث نجوم؟! خمس نجوم للمتعة الفكرية ونجمة لجمهورية أفلاطون


#أخيراً هل أجرؤ على القول يا ترى أني أتمنى أن لا أكون قد نسيت شيئاً؟


****** **** ** * ** **** ******

•tما بين "...*" مقتبس بتصرف
•tما بين [...] مقتبس
•tوتستمر الرحلة مع المحاورات ......إلى الجزء الثاني
_______________________________

II
III
IV
V
VI

جمهور افلاطون ده کتابه و انقدر طولانیه که نمیشه یک نظر مشخص و معلوم در مورد کلش داد. شاید بهتر باشه آدم در مورد کتاب بکتابش نظر بده. اما بهرحال،
جمهور رو من بزبان اصلی‌ش نخوندم، ترجمه‌ش بانگلیسیرو خوندم و فکر نمیکنم درست باشه هیچ نظری در مورد نثرش بدم. در موردش بیشتر ازینها حرف زده‌ند و نمیدونم چی هست که من ادبیاتی بتونم درمورد این کتاب که از امهات فلسفه‌ست اضافه کنم. اما چند چیز که همینطوری بنظرم اومد یکی این بود که این دیالوگ بیشتر از حداقل بقیه دیالوگها دیالوگ نیست و خیلی کم گفتگو درش دیده میشه. سقراط حرف میزنه و راهنمایی میکنه و طرف دیگه تایید میکنه یا تعجب میکنه یا ازش میخواد بیشتر توضیح بده. فکر میکنم بجز مورد تراسیماخوس کسی چندان وارد دیالوگ باون معنی نمیشه و طرف مقابل پنکه‌ایه که ورقهای بله و البته و همینطوره رو هرازگاهی پرت میکنه رو میز. ولی بهرحال شکل گرافیکی دیالوگرو داره. در جمهور مسائل متنوعی مطرح میشند، از رژیم غذایی و تربیت بچها گرفته تا عدالت و انواع کاراکترها. و باز مثل بقیه دیالوگهای افلاطون اون چندتایی که خونده‌م چیزیکه منرو وحشتزده میکنه اینه که این حرفها با این همه دقت و فکر که روشون شده‌ قبل از میلاد مسیح زده شده‌ند (حیرتا) و طرفه اینکه ��لبته بعضی حرفهاش بعد از اینهمه سال بنظر خام میاد، مثلا تقسیم‌بندی تیپ‌های شخصیتی‌ش اما چیزهایی هم داره که هنوز قابل استفاده‌ند و مثلا من خودم باهاشون همداستانم؛ مثل حرفهایی که در مذمت پولداری میزنه یا برخوردی که در مواجهه با بلاها توصیه میکنه اعتقادات من در عصر اینترنت هم هستند. و چیز دیگری که بهش فکر میکنم اینه که اگه افلاطون با این جزئیات و جدیت در مورد این همه چیز حرف زده واقعا بشر از اون موقع تا الان چی کار میکرده و چه دستاوردی داره. طبیعیش این بود که با گذشت این همه سال نشه دیگه اینهارو خوند و بنظر مهملات ساده‌انگارانه بیاند اما حقیقت چیز دیگه‌ایه.
بخشهایی ازین کتاب خیلی خسته‌کننده‌ند و تک‌صدایی‌ش خیلی وقتها دلرو میزنه، اما بخشهایی هم داره که بسیار جالب و گاهی سرگرم‌کننده‌ند و بنظرم کلا کتابیه که بخوندنش میرزه.

Πολιτεία = The Republic, Plato

The Republic is a Socratic dialogue, written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning justice, the order and character of the just city-state, and the just man.

It is Plato's best-known work, and has proven to be one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory, both intellectually and historically.

عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «جمهوری»؛ «جمهوریت شرکت مطبوعاتی سپر، ترجمه احمد توکلی، در سال 1334، در 170ص»؛ اثر: افلاطون؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دوازدهم ماه ژوئن سال 1976میلادی

عنوان: جمهوری؛ اثر: افلاطون مترجم: فواد روحانی؛ در سالهای 1335 و در سال 1348هجری خورشیدی توسط بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب در 648ص؛ و توسط انتشارات علمی فرهنگی در سال 1368هجری خورشیدی و در سال 1379هجری خورشیدی و چاپ نهم آن در سال 1383، چاپ دهم 1384، و ...؛ و چاپ چهاردهم در سال 1392 منتشر شده، موضوع نقد و تفسیر جمهوریت، علوم سیاسی کهن از نویسندگان یونان - سده چهارم پیش از میلاد

عنوان: جمهوری افلاطون؛ اثر: افلاطون؛ مترجم: محمدحسن لطفی؛ مشخصات نشر تهران، ابن سینا، 1353، ده جلد در یک مجلد؛ در چهارده و در549ص؛

عنوان: دوره‌ آث‍ار اف‍لاطون‌؛ ت‍رج‍م‍ه‌ م‍ح‍م‍دح‍س‍ن‌ ل‍طف‍ی‌، رض‍ا ک‍اوی‍ان‍ی‌؛ تهران، 1357؛ در ششش جلد؛ جلد یک: آپ‍ول‍وژی‌، ک‍ری‍ت‍ون‌، پ‍روت‍اگ‍وراس‌، ل‍ی‍ن‍ری‍س‌، لام‍س‌، ف‍ارم‍ی‍دس‌؛ جلد دوم: اوت‍ی‍ف‍رن‌، گ‍رل‍ی‍اس‌، م‍ن‍ون‌، م‍ه‍م‍ان‍ی‌، ف‍ای‍دون‌؛ جلد سوم: ه‍ی‍پ‍ی‍اس‌ ب‍زرگ‌، ای‍ون‌، آل‍ل‍ی‍ب‍ی‍ادس‌، ه‍ی‍پ‍ی‍اس‌ ک‍وچ‍ک‌، م‍ن‍ک‍س‍وس‌، ک‍رات‍ی‍ل‍وس‌، اوت‍ی‍دم‌؛ جلد چهارم: ج‍م‍ه‍وری‌؛ جلد پنجم: ف‍ای‍دروس‌، ت‍ه‌م‍ه‌ ت‍ئ‍وس‌، س‍وف‍ی‍س‍ت‌، م‍رد س‍ی‍اس‍ی‌؛ جلد شش: پ‍ارم‍ی‍ن‍دس‌، ف‍ی‍ل‍س‌، ن‍ی‍م‍اژوس‌، ک‍ری‍ت‍ی‍اس‌، س‍ام‍ه‌ه‍ا؛

کتاب «جمهوری» شامل ده نمایشنامه به روش گفتگو؛ میان «سقراط» و دیگران است و در آنها به «عدالت»، «نوع حکومت»، و «حقیقت»، پرداخته شده است؛ گفتگوی نخست با «کفالوس» است؛ و کتاب دوم با سخنان «گلاوکن» آغاز می‌شود؛ و کتاب سوم «چگونگی تربیت پاسداران است»؛ و ...؛

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 14/07/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 02/06/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

گفته‌های سقراط و نوشته‌های افلاطون، همیشه از فرط قابل تعمیم بودن برای هر زمان و دوره‌ای شگفت‌زده‌م می‌کنن. موشکافی مسائل و پرداختن‌شون به ریزجزئیات و فهموندن عمیق مباحث به خواننده هم از نکاتیه که همیشه به‌چشم میاد. از بعضی بخش‌ها بخاطر تفاوت عقیده -با نگاه عاقل‌اندرسفیه- گذشتم اما یادداشت‌های خیلی خوبی ازش برداشتم.

The book is a dialogue among the students. Where some serious questions have been asked. Like, what is a reality? What is good and bad? The book tries t capture all the forces of earth and translate them into a constructive idea. It talks about almost all thing. How should be an idle society look like, how should be an individual.
The book is a must-read for everyone who wants to understand the depth of life.

I've pushed off trying to review this one but I suppose I should actually do it.
The thing is, I'm not really sure what to say. I went in hesitantly. After Kris read and disliked it, I think I even planned on skipping this one altogether. But we read it in the class I TA for and the professor kicked it off by calling the "second best book ever written."
And you know, that is some really high praise.
I'm not sure he has convinced me that it is the second best book ever written, but he certainly convinced me of the importance of this book's influence on Western thought. And thanks to the class (I promise I'm not being a suck up, he isn't on Goodreads), I understood this book enough to both appreciate it and realize how much is going on that I either would have missed or probably did miss.
Because Plato is trying to argue for something pretty radical. The foundationalism at the core of his argument is one I ascribe to and focusing on that connection I found myself more in agreement than disagreement. It was eye-opening to see so many principles I take for granted expounded upon for the first time. I would read something and say, "But that's C.S. Lewis!" or "This connects to something G.K. Chesterton says." or "Saul Alinsky knew the Tyrant model well." Which was so cool!
But this is certainly a philosopher's book. It begs for debate, discussion, further analysis. It doesn't entirely satisfy.
There is a reason we are still talking about it today. But on the flip side, I sure am glad I read it in a class because I am 100% confident I would have missed most what is being said otherwise. Well worth the read, but I'm grateful for context.

Glaucon: The greatest yes-man of human history.

Indeed, I now see how this was such an influential text. It is quite comprehensive in breadth by addressing, well, almost everything about society. Given the context, specific topics addressed which surprised me were feminism, eugenics (alluded to), socialism (also alluded to), and aspects of arts. Also, the famous Socratic dialogue was interesting to finally observe in action. Though, this is not to forget the numerous issues in both content and presentation which philosophers ended up critiquing and debating about for centuries.

On the whole, there was little particularly noteworthy for me personally given my background and context. However, reading this did provide THE essential context for subsequent philosophical works.

“Republic,” it must be stipulated at the outset, is a Latin term (res publica, “public matter”), and therefore is really not the right way to translate the name of this quintessentially Greek dialogue by Plato. Its original Greek title, politeía or πολιτεία, typically means “constitution,” and might best be translated in this context as “the ideal state” – a term that Plato uses quite frequently throughout the dialogue. Yet by any name, Plato’s Republic remains one of the most important books ever written; and if you care about topics like the way in which the government of your country serves – or does not serve – its people, then you should make a point of reading The Republic.

The Republic stands out among Plato’s dialogues in a number of ways. For one thing, it is among the longest of the dialogues (368 pages in this Penguin Books edition, not counting appendices and notes). For another, it has quite the cast of characters. The setting is the home of Polemarchus, a prominent resident of the Athenian port of Piraeus, and the eleven participants in the dialogue include not only Socrates and Polemarchus but also Polemarchus’ father Cephalus and brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus. Also along for the philosophical ride is the sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, who here plays the role – one that will be familiar to readers of Plato’s dialogues – of sophist foil whose easy and facile assumptions are undone by Socrates’ more open-minded and ethically focused inquiries.

The subject of their discussion is the politeía, the ideal state, and the shape that it would take; and from the beginning it seems clear that Plato is not trying to set forth a realistic blueprint for an actual, temporal society. In his discussion of the education that a small group of elite Guardians are to receive, in order that they may be wise and fearless defenders of the commonwealth, Plato’s Socrates declares that epic poems like Homer’s Iliad should be shorn of their grotesque and horrifying passages, as “the better they are as poetry the more unsuitable they are for the ears of children or men who are to be free and fear slavery more than death….[T]he thrill of terror they cause will make our Guardians more nervous and less tough than they should be” (p. 78).

Does Plato really want to censor the Iliad? Almost certainly not; Homer’s poems were foundational texts for the classical Greek world, like the Bible for the medieval and early modern West. Rather, Plato’s purpose in this dialogue seems to be placing before the reader the contradictions that would be involved in moving from the imperfect states of the temporal realm to a theoretical “ideal” state.

At the same time, Plato’s theoretical state seems downright modern in many ways. Consider, for example, the way in which Plato’s Socrates declares that “We shall have to train the women also” in hitherto male-dominated skills like hunting and keeping watch, “and train them for war as well, and treat them in the same way as the men” (p. 161). Later in the same passage, Socrates states that as “it is natural for women to take part in all occupations as well as men”, accordingly “there will also be some women fitted to be Guardians” (pp. 165-66). A fairly radical declaration for the year 380 B.C. – 2300 years before the government of the United States of America recognized women’s right to vote – and one that puts Plato light-years ahead of his one-time pupil Aristotle when it comes to gender equity.

Central to The Republic is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. We hear so much about this allegory, in so many contexts, that any first-time reader of The Republic is bound to look forward to encountering the allegory in its original context for the first time. Yet the first-time reader of The Republic may not be ready for the violence of the metaphor, or for its focus on injustice and confinement:

“Imagine an underground chamber like a cave, with a long entrance open to the daylight and as wide as the cave. In this chamber are men who have been prisoners there since they were children, their legs and necks being so fastened that they can only look straight ahead of them and cannot turn their heads. Some way off, behind and higher up, a fire is burning, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them runs a road, in front of which a curtain-wall has been built, like the screen at puppet shows between the operators and their audience, above which they show their puppets" (p. 241).

As translator and commentator Desmond Lee of Cambridge University points out, a modern-day analogue for Plato's cave exists in television, as Plato seems to feel that the average person's "moral and intellectual opinions often bear as little relationship to the truth as the average film or television programme does to real life" (p. 240). Such considerations carry particular weight in a time when a recent U.S. president came to power in large part because large numbers of American voters connected with a mediatic public image conveyed via something called “reality television” (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one).

The “ideal state” in The Republic, as with other topics like rhetoric or law-making in other dialogues, is of interest here because the shape that a political state takes has everything to with the one topic that is always Plato’s core interest: “the most important of issues…the choice between a good and an evil life” (p. 317).

Accordingly, I read The Republic the same way I listen to John Lennon’s song “Imagine” (1971). When Lennon asked his listeners to “Imagine there’s no countries,” or to “Imagine no possessions…Nothing to kill or die for,” I don’t think he was expecting the citizens of his native Great Britain, or of his adopted U.S.A., to adopt such a program as a matter of practical constitutional policy. Rather, he no doubt hoped that his listeners would question an unthinking attachment to “traditional” values like nationalism, materialism, and militarism.

Similarly, I believe, Plato wanted his readers, whether they were Athenian or Spartan or whatever, to question the underlying assumptions of their own societies, and to work for change where they saw fit – keeping always in mind the goal of building a state that would encourage people to be virtuous. It is, heaven knows, a goal still worth pursuing today.

Desmond Lee’s classic translation, with further refinements by Rachana Kamtekar of the University of Michigan, is a great way to get to know a dialogue that is described on the dust jacket – accurately, I believe – as “the cornerstone of Western philosophy.”