Talk:Republic (Plato)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although represented as a dialogue

Although represented as a dialogue. If looked closely it is actually a monologue. In philosophy a dialogue is an exchange of ideas and/or opinions. The more normal explanation for dialogue meaning conversation between two people is of no interest. In philosophy a dialogue can only have meaning if two hypotheses are compared through discussion. This is however not the case. The character of Socrates does all the philosophy, while the other characters are mainly there to agree with him and to steer the book in the direction Plato wishes it to go.

This is not really true. In the first book, for instance, Thrasymachus does a lot of arguing with Socrates...

Yes, but later in the book...it becomes a monologue..however you are correct.

But it is clear that Thrasymachus isn't arguing in totality an actual position held by anyone else. Plato is the writer who determines what Thrasymachus says, and what he makes Thrasymachus say does not 'do justice' to the fundamental root of Thrasymachus' idea of justice.

Too easily Plato writes that Thrasymachus agrees to this or that unfounded assertion made by Plato's Socrates. So I would tend to agree with the first statement that the dialogue is fictional, and that there is no real dialogue, only Plato. And Plato words things to advance Plato's position on a ruler's right to rule. -- Capone

Any dialogue that is "made" by one author, rather than a record of a discussion, is not "really" a dialogue. So, "dialogue" is necessarily a form, and the Politeia is clearly that. To which extent which of Plato's work is actually dialogical, there is a vast amount of secondary literature; it seems to depend both on Plato's didactical purposes in the given work, as well as on when he wrote it. Clossius 07:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a dialogue in the same sense as Shakespeare. Does anybody go to play and actually think, well this is just the playwright speaking, it's not a dialogue? You have before you in the Republic a drama, of course one author is the author- but where did he get his ideas? Does anyone think every playwright is a creative genius who just comes up with things or does he look and listen and think and distill then write? To imply The Republic is not a dialogue, just a monologue, is to exhibit a poor understanding of art and philosophy.--Mikerussell 00:24, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

The arguments mouthed by Thrasymachus, and later Glaucon strongly resembel the Melian Dialog, and probably a general conception of Justice at the type. Socrates was alive during the Melian genocide, so this is probably not an accident... Because of this, the first few books of the republic is Plato's response to the traditional arguments that held strong sway in Athens at the time. Bigmacd24 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Literary Style

The work is also famous for its literary style: the text is presented as a discussion between Socrates and several other students at a dinner.

- We need much more than this: The Republic is certainally not simply a discussion between Plato and his students.

Disambiguation page

Talk:The Republic moved back to here; The Republic is a disambiguation page now, see also category talk:Dialogues of Plato --Francis Schonken 22:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All very well. Your next step in the process is to open "What links here" at left and correct all those double-redirects that have been created. --Wetman 04:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss and the North American view

I added some conten under "Content" because i think it is a shame that the page is using only Bertrand Russell's limited view of the work. This needs to be remedied, if anybody is a Christian Platonist, they may have some valuable insights to add. I will try to add more where appropriate, respcting the likehood that many people fear or have a trepadation to any author who advocates for Strauss' view. --Mikerussell 00:24, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Admin abuse of power is shameful

some admin must be changing this page and erasing their footprint, they HISTORY page does not have any record besides myself of the editing and i certainly did not revert my earlier edit. this is a serious violation and abuse of power since it denied the democratic ethic and the open source value which marks wikipedia. quite simply, the admin should be outed and stripped of the authority granted him/her.--Mikerussell 16:33, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Administrators can't do that. Only those with low-level access to the database—i.e., developers—can change article histories. It's more likely that you encountered a technical error, though I'm not sure exactly what the problem is; can you link to the diff of the edit in question? —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it was technical. It seems okay now.--Mikerussell 05:57, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Note: Mirv's statement is not completely correct: Admin's (and any user) can make histories seemingly disappear, in two simple steps: (1) change the name of the article to whatever non-existing article name; (2) copy the content of the article back to the original page name. The history still "exists", but on the other page, which can be hard to find. At that point only an admin can re-unite the original page and it's history (because the original page first has to be deleted, after which a page move bringing over page history can be performed). Further, with some luck, the person that had performed the two steps mentioned above can help the page history disappear completely within 24h: in step one he moves to an article name with an obivious typo, and after step two empties the article and lists it for speedy deletion: if no admin remarks something "irregular" going on, bye-bye page history. There are some guidelines trying to avoid that separation of pages and their history would occur. Regarding the present article, discussion continues on the page name, see Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato. --Francis Schonken 11:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Reception overwhelming content

The Republic is one of the most inspired (if slightly misguided) discussions on several issues in Philosophy. I have read through the article, and I have to say, I am quite vexed at the lack of information about the content, compared to the verbiage wrote about its reception.--Knucmo2 11:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Knucmo2, you might have a look at Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato#Plot_summaries where I used this article on Plato's Republic dialogue as an example of how difficult it can be to make good "content summaries" for article's on Plato's dialogues. So, hereby kindly inviting you to work on the content summary section of the article! I'd be glad to help. --Francis Schonken 09:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I reckon it's easily doable. I have the Everyman edition with a handy intro from Terence Irwin and a summary from A.D Lindsay--Knucmo2 11:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead, seems no problem to me. Maybe first work on the "content summary" section, and in a second step work on the "verbiose" in the "reception history" section. That's only a hint, in order to trigger consensus as much as possible: just proceed like you think best. --Francis Schonken 11:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Treatise on Political Science? Humbug!

Plato's Republic can hardly be called a 'treatise of political science'. It is a work on morality and individual psychology, on personal fullfilment. Just because it proposes an ideal community and delves into political issues does not make it a 'treatise of political science'. Compare with Machiavelli's Il Principe: the books are worlds apart.

Throughout the book Plato is far less interested in politics than morality, goodness and the individual [eg. the tripartite mind]. This accounts for the many 'gaps' which are to be found; if taken as a political work the Republic is simply absurd.

To quote Trevor Saunders: 'To suppose that Plato ever thought that the Republic was attainable would be to suppose him capable not merely of optimism or idealism, but of sheer political naivete' (Plato: The Laws, Penguin Books, 1970, pp. 27,28). Plato's main goal was not to provide a treatise of political science but to provide an analogy or 'an allegory of the individual human spirit'. (Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, iv. Plato, the Man and his Dialogues: Earlier Period Cambridge University Press, 1975, p.561). And as I said, 'a great deal of the book is simply absurd if read as a serious political philosophy' (Waterfield, R., introduction in Republic, Oxford University Press 1993, p. xviii).

So in summary, whereas the book does delve into politics, and thus attempt (however lightly) a sort of political system, it does not take politics serious enough to be called a 'treatise of political science'. Politics are involved, and at times it does seem as though the work is a political treatise (the most famous idea reflecting this must be the 'philosopher kings'), it would definitely not stand its ground as such work, and indeed most political references are to be taken allegorically. That said, Republic does offer instances of political relevance, and indeed has much to offer to political theory, but that does not make the work itself a 'treatise of political science', much less 'the most influential'.

Sapienza 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah well, one may of course call views different from one's own "humbug", but other than name-calling, what is it worth? Really depends on one's definition of Political Science, doesn't it? There are "scientists" around in this field; there are others. There is no consensus on the nature of the Republic (if we really want to call it that), but the defense of its odd-seeming passages by saying it was never meant for politics and had merely the intention described above goes, I think, way off the mark - it is also not communis opinio (certainly not if one looks a bit over the narrow limits of contemporary Anglo-American scholarship on the subject, but even if one doesn't). (Admittedly, there is no opinion on Plato for which one can't find some reference in some persons' books.) The "Republic" is a heuristic utopia that should never be attained in "real life", but it should further insights into how things are related and what can and should be done - in the specifically political world. In addition, to envision Plato, out of all people, not being interested - even mainly - in political matters would mean to really ignore how the ancient Greeks thought; for Plato, the polis was first and foremost (the literati disdain for political matters is a later phenomenon). So, I think it is fair to say that the "Republic" is indeed a treatise on PolSci. Clossius 17:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Oh but I do not call humbug those opinions which differ from my own; I only call humbug those which are complete and utter nonsense and do not have as much as a pinch of veracity in them.
The most basic definition of 'Political Science' I could come up with (with reference to the multitude to be found) was 'the systematic study of government and political processes.' A similar definition is to be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica: 'an academic discipline most generally understood to include the systematic study of government processes by the application of scientific methods of analysis.' The same encyclopedia defines political philosophy as concerning 'the ends or objectives of politics and the way in which political society should be organized in order to realize those ends.' This is what Plato endeavours to establish.
The Knowledge in Depth article goes even further: 'More narrowly and more traditionally, it [political science] has been thought of as the study of the state and of the organs and institutions through which the state functions [...] most students agree that the roots of political science are to be found in the earliest sources of Western thought, especially in the works of Aristotle, who is recognized by many as the founder of political science.' And more to the point, the distinction is made clear in the following comparison quoted from the same article: Political Philosophy 'speculates about the place and order of values, the principles of political obligation (why men should or should not obey political authority), and the nature of such terms as right, justice, and freedom. Political science, on the other hand, seeks to establish by observation (and, if possible by measurement) the existence of uniformities in political behaviour and to draw correct inferences from these data.' (my emphasis: since observation is the method of choice of the political scientist, Plato's Republic cannot fall into such a category since his is an ideal community, which never did, nor will it ever exist. Since it is not real, it cannot be observed.)
Furthermore, the bibliography section starts with a caveat which further proves my point: 'Although works of classical political philosophy are both venerable and extensive, few of them qualify as modern political science because they are neither quantitative nor, in most respects, even empirical in tone and temper.' The bibliography starts with Aristotle's Poltics, and reasonably enough omits Plato's Republic.
As to the idea of the roots of political science dating back to after Plato (in his pupil Aristotle), I can offer the following passage: 'Although Plato has the stronger claim to be the founder of political theory, Aristotle is the founder of political science, the composite sudy of philosophy and politics' (Plato to Nato: Studies in Political Thought, p. 43).
Modern Poltical Science is comparatively speaking quite an innovation (not to be confused with political theory/philosophy). Whereas knowledge of Plato (and his Republic) is quite useful in discussions pertaining to political science, he himself (and his works) is not a political scientist per definitionem. It was Aristotle who first organized political knowledge in a scientia. Plato was more concerned with creating Utopias, ideal communities. This cannot be considered as political science - what Plato offers are paradigms - ie. political theory. Indeed it is Utopian thinkers who borrow most from Plato. In this regard it should be enough to mention two of the most influential (apart from Plato himself): Cicero and Moore's Utopia.
Quoting from the Wikipedia article regarding Political Science: 'During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli established the emphasis of modern political science on direct empirical observation of political institutions and actors. Later, the expansion of the scientific paradigm during the Enlightenment further pushed the study of politics beyond normative determinations.'
With implicit reference to Plato, Machiavelli writes: ' colui che lascia quello che si fa per quello che si dovrebbe fare impara piuttosto la ruina che la perservazione sua ' - in essense that is what Plato offers in his Republic, ie. how one should live one's life: an enquiry into morality.
You say there is no consensus on the nature of the Republic, but then why call it a treatise of political science? (NPOV?)
You have provided much rhetoric but not a single valid argument. You state that it is not commonly accepted (by experts in the field I assume) that Plato's work 'had merely the intention described above'. I challenge you to support that assertion with references. Indeed you make lots of assertions, yet you do not attempt to prove a single one.
And anyway this is not about communis opinio, this is about the intentio auctoris and the intentio operis.
Basically you jump from premise to conclusion. May I ask what happened to the argument?
But let us not digress. This is my argument supporting my claims as stated above:
In 370b Plato introduces the notion that each of us has a single talent and that we must work only at the thing which corresponds to this talent for our entire life. This would be absurd in a treatise on political science, yet it makes sense if it is attributed to the notion that there are distinct mental faculties. In 415c, and indeed throughout the whole of Republic, Plato assumes that the lower classes, the ruled, will consent to being ruled. Even though they are not capable of having reason rule over the other two parts of the mind, they still are able to see that being ruled by philosopher kings, even when this goes against their motivations and interests as ruled by the desirous part of the mind, is good for them. This is contradictory and over-simplistic, as well as 'politically naive' (Waterfield, op. cit., p. 399). Again in 432a Plato partakes in this poltical naivety, where he expects the lower classes to acquiesce in having little control over their own lives. Again this is politically absurd. Plato expects to create a unified community based on a caste system. Any student of politics will point out how this is utterly deficient. Kant would have a thing or two to say about this too (read Über den Gemeinspruch: 'Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die Praxis').
At 472e we find out the extent of Plato's lack of interest in politics. At times, such as here, he rejects the possibility of his community becoming actualized, yet at others (most notably 502c and 540d...) he assumes it could actually beceome reality. Of course if this was a treatise on political science (and not an opus on morality with substantial political theory) this ambiguity would have been removed, for it would have been essential to the coherence of the whole work.
On warfare Plato states that his ideal community should avoid it as much as possible. Yet later on in the book (as in 537a), especially when he talks about the education of the philosopher kings, he says that observing warfare is a very important aspect of the children's education. He argues that children should be sent to see their 'fathers' fight. Of course this would be impossible if the community were to avoid war as much as possible. Indeed this would only make sense if we consider morality (and individual psychology) to be the main subject of discourse.
This evidence leads us to (in Waterfield's words) 'conclude that, as usual in Republic, he [Plato] is less interested in external politics than in psychology.' (Waterfield, op. cit., p. 438).
That is my whole argument. If you still find objections, please reply with an argument of your own proving the contrary, rather than providing us with useless and tedious rhetoric.
In conclusion, whereas the extent to which one may call a work 'political science' is still a vexed question, and although 'the distinctions are unsatisfactory inasmuch as they lack categorical vigour' (Encyclopaedia Britannica), the communis opinio is that in fact Plato's Republic is not a treatise of political science. And it can never be so, for it is also communis opinio that the founder of political science is Plato's pupil, Aristotle. Poltical Science is an empirical study of politics. Plato, at most, is a political philosopher.
Sapienza 14:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


Well, as Paul Natorp once said in a similar situation, although the tone of the message of Sapienza makes a reply superfluous ("rather than providing us with useless and tedious rhetoric" - obviously, my rhethoric, if indeed it was that, was useful :-) -, "I only call humbug those which are complete and utter nonsense and do not have as much as a pinch of veracity in them", etc.), the subject matter is important enough to warrant one.
I would first sum up the argument as follows: The Republic is not about observable and indeed observed facts; Political Science is about observed facts; therefore, the Republic is not Political Science. The argument importantly doesn't say that this is mainstream view, but that this is the only possible view, and that everything else is "complete and utter nonsense and do[es] not have as much as a pinch of veracity in" it.
Now, both in its development and as it looks today, the heavily empirical focus of Political Science as a post-war discipline is indeed an important one; it - the emphasis, not the exclusivity! - is currently the mainstream; and APSA and IPSA members and committee sessions in a majority of cases reflect this view. However, I think that it is fair to say that Political Science, observed over the years and not only in two or three countries, has often been, and has mostly included, the possible move of the "Is" to the "Ought". In other words, Political Philosophy is very much a part of Political Science, and globally, only very few "scientistic" departments have removed it from that field and relegated it to Philosophy (only). Admittedly, there is a serious fight over these issues within the discipline, especially within the paradigm-leading United States - but even there, the fight generally ends factually with a plurality of approaches, not with saying that 'only empiricism matters'. A glance at the APSA annual conventions (see [1]) - APSA is the most "hardline" empirical of the big PolSci professional organizations -, at the main volume about the subject matter (Katznelson, Ira and Helen V. Milner (eds.) (2002). Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Centennial edn. New York: Norton / Washington, DC: APSA) shows that both views dominate jointly. (On the empirical emphasis and its extension to Europe, see also Schmitter, Phillipe (2002). "Seven (Disputable) Theses Concerning the Future of "Transatlanticised" or "Globalised" Political Science." European Political Science 1 (2): 23-40) Functionally, I would say that simple empiricism can never be enough for PolSci; normative thought is absolutely important, and empiricism without normative concepts is empty. Again, it matters little what I think in this context, but the fact is that generally, normative reasoning is seen as a legitimate part pof PolSci itself - which is why graduate departments of PolSci do not get accredited in most countries if there is no professorship in PolPhil and/or Theory.
In sum, the reason the "humbug" statement by Sapienza is wrong is that it claims that Political Philosophy is not part of Political Science, because Political Science is empirical, and PolPhil is not. Yet, communis opinio (which is what matters in wikipedia, not what the author or the work mean or intend, as much as this is ascertainable) is that PolPhil is part of PolSci, and only a (radical) minority says that only empirical research qualifies as PolSci. So, PolPhil is indeed part of PolSci, and the Republic is the first important and comprehensive treaty of PolPhil in providing a heuristic utopia (heuristic! not meant to be realized! "realism" of the system therefore doesn't matter!), one of the most important parts of the development of the polis until today (see Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man, Yale UP 1944; see also indeed Über den Gemeinspruch, in which Kant, in the Introduction, says that a theory is falsified (let's not get into this debate :-) just take it for the moment) if disproven by praxis, but that praxis is emphatically not just doing things, but rather, applied theory). Therefore, the statement that the Republic is the first larger treatise on PolSci, and one of the most important ones, is absolutely legitimate. Therefore, to call that statement "humbug" is just name-calling.
To conclude, Sapienza calls my support of the claim that point that the Republic is a significant treatise on PolSci "complete and utter nonsense and do[es] not have as much as a pinch of veracity in" it. I do not say the same about his arguments in the second message at all. Clearly, Sapienza knows his Plato and his Republic (and were it not anti-wiki, I would also say that, if he did indeed reveal his identity in the references to the first message, he has provided us with a fine comtemporary translation of it). I would also agree with him that Aristotle's Politika, and of course Machiavelli (if less the Principe), are much more important to what Political Science is today - in scope, content, and method -, than Plato, even if one includes his much more "realistic" and indeed to some large degree empirical work, the Nomoi. His view that Plato is, in the Politeia, more interested in psychology (or education) than in politics is a legitimate, traditional argument which I do not think valid (and with me a plethora of scholars), but which can of course be made (I only think that the intention is not really what matters in our context, but rather the effect, and the effect is largely PolPhil).
But all this doesn't make the view that the Republic is the first important treatise on PolSci wrong, let alone absurd. It is a real pity that these points couldn't have been brought out by normal scholarly discourse, but that all was started by calling a legitimate position, "humbug". Clossius

POV comments deleted about "the Greek text"

I edited out the following line:

Others divisions of The Republic are somewhat amateurish as they do not take into account the Greek text.

Whoever wrote it exhibits poor judgment. Amateurish is a term not applicable to Bertrand Russell or Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom. Certainly Strauss and Bloom read ancient Greek, Bloom translated a popular edition of The Republic. The person may have a personal preference for their view, and they are more than encouraged to present it (as they have) for it is a respectable and valid interpretation, but it is just that- a Francis Cornford, Kurt Hildebrandt and Eric Voegelin interpretation. Making a reader believe that the view is the only true or correct version, or ‘breakdown’ of the text- and justifying it by some strange assumption about needing to know ancient Greek is preposterous. It is stepping beyond a balanced view, and violates NPOV aim. Did the author ever think their ‘professional’ view strikes others as just as amateur? --Mikerussell 05:19, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Plus, I would just imagine what Plato would have thought of the "professional/amateur" division in such a context. :-) Anyway, knowing Greek is a conditio sine qua non, not a special qualification in this context. The line was certainly not NPOV. Clossius 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Edited definition of Justice

I changed the line: Justice is defined as a state where everyone is to do their own work while not interfering with the work of others.

to : "Justice is defined as working at the role which you are best suited for and not interfering in the work of others."


I also changed the quote in the next paragraph from 433b-c which read "minding one's own business" to more accurately reflect the text as "to do one's own business and not to be a busybody." I added the additional quote that starts of 433, that gives a broader picture of the definition of justice in the Dialogue.

I thought the way it was written previously, did not give the complete picture, and could be misinterpreted to be identical to modern liberterian ideals.

Inappropriate paragraph

This was inserted a while ago:

From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself. The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom. The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic.

Which I deleted. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. First it is POV. Who says Bloom's translation is the most faithful/best? Also, I don't think DVD lectures belong in this article anymore than my Philosophy 101 class notes do. It just is too far removed from Plato's writing, and probably has far too many competitors.

If you want to include information about translations, which would be great, it should not be in the introductory section, but below under a translations subsection, like it is for anyother work of literature.

It does not matter if you are not associated with The Teaching Company, it's still an advertisement. Also, it is inappropriate to talk about yourself in an encyclopedia article. --24.124.84.133 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I attempted a compromise. You rejected it. I will therefore make it one of my missions in life to make sure the above paragraph stays in the article.

The user above is right. This has no place in an encyclopedia...it is shameless self-advertising. If you want to include references, do so in a reference section at the end of the article. --Carl.bundersonCarl.bunderson 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggested compromise for 71.118.32.15

I have two basic problems with this paragraph, that it is point of view, and that the information is in the wrong place. Also (and this isn't as important as the other two) it is a poorly structured paragraph.

First, this clearly in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. The actual language of the policy is "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias". If you disagree with this policy, then you should look to other projects (like Everything2) that allow personal opinion, or even Amazon's user reviews. Wikipedia is simply not here to allow everyone to spout off.

Second, this paragraph doesn't belong in the article's lead section. As the Lead section article states, this space should be fairly short and contain only essential information necessary for understanding the topic. That means no peripheral information, such as translations and study aids--see, for example, the Bible article. this information, if it is included at all, should appear in the main body of the article, below the table of contents. Translations are usually the last (or close to last) section in an article. A good rule of thumb for a literature article is that it should be chronological--this article starts with a very brief description of the work and its author, then goes into a more in depth examination of the work, then chronologically explores the influence the work has had. After this could be information about translations. A translations section should have a neutral discussion(e.g., no phrases like "most faithful"), and should have references for anything that may be construed as personal opinion. It cannot simply be about Bloom's translation, even if you do provide references and describe it neutrally. A good section on translations is always a great addition to an article on a work of literature.

The DVD lectures is a different matter, and I think do not belong to be in this article at all. First, I think that most "serious students" will not get a few DVDs, but will go to the library and check out serious academic studies of the work. These DVDs sound (and you have provided no information on them) things that lazy professors use for their undergrad classes. Maybe it provides the in depth exegis that a book can provide, but we don't really find out from your paragraph. If the DVD lecture stays in the article (and it must be discussed neutrally), then it should probably be only a brief mention in a section on academic studies, and any of The Teaching Company's competitors should also be (briefly) mentioned. I really think that DVD study aids do not belong here at all, but if you're "not going to surrender", then at least introduce the topic in a way consistent with Wikipedia's editorial policies.

My last (and compared to the above, irrelevant) complaint is that the paragraph is poorly written. Fixing this will do nothing to change our mind's about this paragraph, but I figured I'd mention it anyway.

"From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself." Of course an encyclopedia article is not a substitute for a thorough study of any work of literature. This is so obvious that it treats the reader as if he/she is stupid, which should always be avoided. Anyone who tried to use this article in place of actually reading the text would probably use Cliffs Notes or something. Besides, it is not our job to down play our own articles, it is the job of the reader to use them responsibly.

"The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom." This has nothing to do with the previous sentence, or the following sentence, and so clearly does not belong in the same paragraph.

"The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic." This is more related to the first sentence, and should probably follow it. The paragraph does not flow because of this middle sentence.

Also, you wrote a whole paragraph with no links to other articles. Allan Bloom, and The Teaching Company both have articles that (were this paragraph acceptable) should be linked to. A case could also be made for linking DVD.

The compromise that I am suggesting is that, if you want the information in your paragraph to be included, that you should take the time to integrate into the article with a neutral point of view, in appropriate locations in the article, in a manner that is well written and and not condescending to the reader.

If you continue to behave like a spoiled child this will probably head to arbitration and your IP could be blocked from editing articles. --24.124.84.133 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone missed the comment in history, this person's response was: "I categorically reject your analysis as false and itself biased." It is time to get this IP banned. --24.124.84.133 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I am putting in a request for comment about the following paragraph that continues to be inserted by 71.118.32.15. The paragraph is:

"''From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself. The most faithful translation, and widely considered to be the best, is that of Allan Bloom. The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic."

In the two sections appearing above this one I have outlined the reasons why I (and others) are deleting this paragraph. Essentially, it does not have a neutral point of view, does not belong in the lead space, and reads like an Amazon.com user review of a product.

The anonymous user has responded above and in his edit summaries with comments like "I categorically reject your analysis as false and itself biased" and "I attempted a compromise. You rejected it. I will therefore make it one of my missions in life to make sure the above paragraph stays in the article." The compromise he talks about was more neutral, but still misplaced and completely lacked content.

I do not suspect that the user will listen to the results of this request for comment, but I figured I'd start here before moving on to more severe tactics.--24.124.84.133 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph at issue. I categorically reject your analysis as false, vacuous, and itself biased.

I'll help out, saw the RfC, i'll keep this on my watchlist. If you'd like to categorically reject these people's analysis' mr. anon person, please describe how, because your breaking the 3RR rule several times over it looks like. Homestarmy 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, none of that paragraph belongs in the intro. The admonition that there is no substitute for studying the Republic itself might be fine later in the article. The endorsement of Bloom's translation as "most faithful" is POV, and the recommendation of the DVD by The Teaching Company is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia to promote a commercial product. --HK 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My paragraph is entirely appropriate. In accord with Plato himself, I reject your implicit relativism. That is, there is a best translation, and Bloom's is it. Any other view is in error. I suggest both Bloom's translation and the DVD lectures solely to point the reader towards the Form of the Good, again completely consistent with Plato. The study of Plato is not to be merely an academic exercise, but primarily about the right way to live. I choose not to betray Plato and philosophy. Why must you? Swallow your pride and allow this article to direct its readers towards the Good, the Beautiful, and the excellent. 71.118.32.15

I only wish your argument was valid, then I could tell everyone who isnt a Christian "The Bible's view is correct, now gain eternal life through faith in Christ!" and everyone would be saved. Sadly, this is not the case, Biblical evangelism rather can be far more complicated and has no perfect chance of success. Put your paragraph in the article with some citations that prove the consensus view is that this person's works are authoritative and widely accepted on the subject without the advertising and "Any serious scholar..." comment, and that'll at least be a step in the right direction. Homestarmy 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look on any other Wikipedia page. You will not find paragraphs similar to the one listed above, and there is a reason for that: Wikipedia does not make recommendations or admonitions. It doesn't matter whether or not Bloom's translation is the best - it is not Wikipedia's place to make that sort of judgement. It likewise does not matter whether or not any article can acceptably capture Plato's arguments. It is not Wikipedia's place to give readers advice. Readers can be encouraged to read Plato by adding the text in a "Further reading" section at the end, but endorsements beyond that are unacceptable. -Seth Mahoney 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to hear a longer-than-two-sentence response from you, Mr. 71.118.32.15. As has been pointed out, Wikipedia articles are to conform to Wikipedia's editorial policies, not Plato's philosophy. If you don't like this, then you should find another resource whose policies you can agree with, or start your own, say Platepedia. Simply put, you do not own this article, and you cannot do whatever you want to it.
I made several suggestions on how to improve the article and incorporate your ideas as well, while adhearing to Wikipedia's policies. You have not responded to anything, except to accuse me of depriving readers of the good, the beautiful, and your oh so "excelent suggestions". You have still not explained why your paragraph is written from a neutral point of view, or belongs in the lead space. I suspect that the reason why you are ignoring my suggestions is that you are either too lazy, too proud to "surrender", or are simply a troll. I don't think you're lazy or a troll, since you did go through the whole article and made several positive changes, which are appreciated by all. You simply need to realize that you do not own this article, that the policies that govern Wikipedia are not on the side of this paragraph, and that you are the only one who feels it belongs article as is.
And while this is not important for the discussion, you are hardly acting in accordance with Plato (or at least Plato's Socrates). First, in the Apology, Socrates responds fully to each allegation. You merely "categorically reject" them. Second, while Plato was not a relatavist, he was no dogmatist, and never demanded others accept his views, and always provided justification. Also, Socrates did not try to circumvent the will of the community, as you are.
Either put in the work to incorporate this paragraph's information in a well written manner consistent with Wikipedia's editorial policies, or quit inserting the paragraph in violation of the policies.
If this paragraph continues to be inserted by this user, I am going to request arbitration, as mediation is clearly not going to be successful. I am kind of new to this whole conflict thing, so if there is anyone who is more experienced who would like to spearhead this then feel free to. --24.124.84.133 23:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I reject all of your implicit assumptions, along with all of the platitudinous methodology that either you or Wikipedia espouse. Wikipedia is far, far from a scholarly resource. Its content is supplied by amateurs, and I'll take no part in spreading any false impression that it is not. Your pose of objectivity is entirely transparent. I reject it completely. It is I, not you, who values truth. I'll never surrender. This post is merely the beginning of my organization's wholesale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia.

You do realize you've just made almost a terroristic thread to Wikipedia? That's like worth a super ultra indef ban i'd think, and definently won't make us stop reverting you. Plus, im a novice, your generalization isn't correct :D Homestarmy 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I (previously 24.124.84.133) am going to initiate a request for arbitration. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration in 10 minutes or so to leave input. --Kentaur 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we just add our names to involved parties or what? Homestarmy 02:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. I don't even know if I followed correct procedure; I just want this over with. I guess it can't hurt, and since you have contributed to the discussion I'd call you an involved party. Thanks --Kentaur 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
My dear Platonist...surely you must agree that taking an immutable stance in a forum you profess to despise is hardly doing "your organization" or Plato's legacy any favors? Anonymity and brief, non-specific dismissals of argument are not exactly Platonic. 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from outsider Fred-Chess

Hello. My impression as outsider.

  1. "The best edition is"
    I don't mind mentioning this if it is essential, but I'd prefer having it in the reference section. If this edition is truly considered the superior edition by most scholars, then mention it.
  2. From the beginning, it must be noted that no article can adequately substitute for a thorough study of The Republic itself
    is silly. It is POV. We don't begin Wikipedia articles like that and there are many articles that could begin like that.
  3. "The serious student would also do well to supplement this study with the DVD lectures produced by The Teaching Company, entitled Plato's Republic."
    It is unnecessary. This is not a study guide, it is a Wikipedia article.

That's my 50 cents. I'm not knowledgeable in the subject; only responding to the RfC

Fred-Chess 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have put in a request for arbitration concerning our anonymous philosopher. You can view it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Kentaur 03:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also reported this user for 3RR. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR --Kentaur 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon. However, I very much doubt that the the RFA listing was appropriate - this is just not serious enough, yet. William M. Connolley 11:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
More on that: you put up an RFC *yesterday* and you create an RFA *today*? Please don't. I strongly suggest you remove the RFA asap and give the RFC some time. Also, please link directly to the RFC from here. William M. Connolley 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
Sorry if I didn't do everything right. First time and all. I just figured that once the conversation hits "This post is merely the beginning of my organization's wholesale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia.", I figure that the RfC is probably going nowhere, and that Wikipedia's Organized Whole Sale Assault policy (I imagine one exists) has been violated. I don't mean this sarcastically--I'm still trying to learn--but if a declaration of war isn't enough for a RfA, what is? Also, it's hardly the kind of shock and awe campaign this user promised, he/she has recently (before being blocked) inserted POV into other articles [2]. --Kentaur 17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that the RfA has been removed. Sorry if I jumped the gun, I just remember when I first stumbled upon Wikipedia I inserted a test edit where I shouldn't have, and the fury of the administrators was terrible. I was surprised that this user could continue on for more than a week. --Kentaur 17:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Title

As a matter of interest, why is this called "Republic (dialogue)," and not "Plato's Republic"? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think because the title of the work has never been "Plato's Republic". It is usually considered just "Republic" by Plato. Kind of like Homer's Odyssey's article's title is just Odyssesy, despite there being other similarly titled works. --Kentaur 17:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's usually called The Republic or Plato's Republic. Republic (dialogue) seems an odd choice. I didn't even realize what it was when I first glanced at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see why this may not be the best choice. Matters are complicated by the fact that Cicero also wrote De re publica, now usually called "Republic" or "The Republic", and to top it off, Cicero's work is also a dialogue. I don't think that Plato's Republic is a good choice, and it redirects here anyway. Maybe we should have The Republic redirected to The Republic (disambiguation) and this page redirected to The Republic, since 95% of people who look for The Republic are looking for this article. Kind of like how The Odyssey is handled. --Kentaur 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean move this page to "The Republic"? If so, I'd agree with that, then just add a disambiguation sentence at the top directing readers to The Republic (disambiguation), which we'll create by moving the current The Republic there. Is that what you meant? Any objections from anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It can't hurt. Homestarmy 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. I don't see it as a pressing issue, but I don't think users should have to hunt through a disambiguation page if they search for "The Republic". --Kentaur 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and do it then. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Title

As a matter of interest, why is this called "Republic (dialogue)," and not "Plato's Republic"? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think because the title of the work has never been "Plato's Republic". It is usually considered just "Republic" by Plato. Kind of like Homer's Odyssey's article's title is just Odyssesy, despite there being other similarly titled works. --Kentaur 17:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's usually called The Republic or Plato's Republic. Republic (dialogue) seems an odd choice. I didn't even realize what it was when I first glanced at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see why this may not be the best choice. Matters are complicated by the fact that Cicero also wrote De re publica, now usually called "Republic" or "The Republic", and to top it off, Cicero's work is also a dialogue. I don't think that Plato's Republic is a good choice, and it redirects here anyway. Maybe we should have The Republic redirected to The Republic (disambiguation) and this page redirected to The Republic, since 95% of people who look for The Republic are looking for this article. Kind of like how The Odyssey is handled. --Kentaur 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean move this page to "The Republic"? If so, I'd agree with that, then just add a disambiguation sentence at the top directing readers to The Republic (disambiguation), which we'll create by moving the current The Republic there. Is that what you meant? Any objections from anyone else? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a date for "Cornford, Hildebrandt and Voegelin subdivisions." I added one, 1945, to the Bertrand Russell History mentioned immediately before.

Requested move

Republic (dialogue) → Republic (Plato) – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Standard disambiguation – That it's a dialogue is obvious (while generally all Plato's works are dialogues) but not unambiguous with Cicero's dialogue; so I propose to leave out the "type of work disambiguator", and only the author's name as disambiguator, per the guideline mentioned.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Theory of universals section

I have wrote three paragraphs covering Plato's theory of the cave which is integral to understanding the Republic. As such however it still needs an explanation of the divided line and the form of the good too. --Knucmo2 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

If anyone has some rigorous reasons for why The Affairs of the Polis is not a good alternate translation of the title please tell me you're going to delete it, so I can also delete the redirect page. I heard this was the proper translation of the title from a very intelligent colleague, though she may be wrong. --Matthew 06:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia:naming conventions (common names). "Republic" is a bad, erroneous translation of the original title. But it is the common name. The Affairs of the Polis wouldn't be recognised very well as a title of a work by Plato ("recognition" being a first order principle of wikipedia's naming conventions).
See also wikipedia:naming conventions (books) and WP:RM. --Francis Schonken 08:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But is it still alright if The Affairs of The Polis redirects to Republic? --Matthew 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be redirecting to Republic (Plato) then. Was there ever a translation of Plato's dialogue published under the English title you indicate? Or is it a version of the title often used in English? I briefly looked, but couldn't find "The Affairs of The Polis" referring to the title of Plato's dialogue in Google... If it is unusual to talk about the dialogue under that English title, I don't see a reason for the redirect (and then it could be confusing, if it would be used as a link in other articles, without anybody recognising it refers to Plato's Republic) --Francis Schonken 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Politeia could be "Politics," is kindof closer in English. The Republic must refer to the state discussed in the book.

The Republic vs. Republic

I would put this under the first 'Title' section, but it says not to comment on that section anymore. I notice that the suggested move is to Republic (Plato) but the article is currently located at The Republic (Plato). I don't see anything here explaining why this is the case, and my copy of the dialog is titled 'Republic', and the Title section in the article suggests (but isn't entirely clear) that Republic is the correct way of referring to the translation of the title. A minor issue perhaps, but I'm curious why the decision was made. dimo414 (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the other dialogues are called, for example, "The Laws" or "The Symposium," so "Republic (Plato)" is probably better. RJC TalkContribs 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All this crap at the start

I deleted all this commentary at the top of the article. The person/people who wrote kind of short-circuit the entire article by 'dumping' their interpretation into the article at the top. What or who has the authority to succintly summarize the dialogue with this assesssment- maybe they should take the time to properly incorporate it into the article in more judicious spots.

All of these areas are examined with a view to discovering the nature of justice; indeed, the engine of the dialogue is this question: "What is justice"? With this view in mind, Plato (through Socrates) constructs an ideal "city in speech," a utopian city of perfect justice. Yet Plato constructs this theoretical city not only to examine the most just city imaginable, but primarily to discover how individuals themselves should best live. On still another level, Plato's Republic is a supreme work addressing the fundamental issue of philosophy; that is, the question of the universal versus the particular.
The original title of the work is the Greek word politeia. "The Republic", which is the traditional English translation of the title, is somewhat of a misnomer, taken from Cicero's latin; a more accurate English title would be "The Polis," which can roughly correspond to the modern term "city". However, the Polis was much more than that. It was a way of life; so in actuality a proper translation would be 'how we live as people' (for a better understanding see Aristotle's Politics).''

-I also added the cover of a book, and hope this does not get people upset that it is Bloom's version, but when i looked at the article this morning, I had a hard time recognizing it as a book's article, it had a lot of poorly edited italics and bolding and disambiguation heading. if you have a picture of a book, you don't need disambiguation headings. --Mikerussell 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

12 book divisions?

I also rewrote and edited-out this 'The Republic is one of Plato's longest dialogues, subdivided into 10 books for editorial reasons but more consistently into 12 preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue. I am no expert, but I have never heard of this 12 book division, and it seems like it needs to be further explained or edited-out. I know the first book was written probably as a single dialogue, but what the 12 book reference really adds to the article was lost on me.--Mikerussell 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I do not know who put that in there at all. Perhaps the editor who put it in might explain why, as I am sure they will have a source for it. --Knucmo2 19:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Liddell & Scott translation of Politeia

Using a generic dictionary translation, without any indication Plato ever used the word in this meaning, in order to rewrite the interpretation of the dialogue (against the already manyfold interpretations by historians, philosophers and other authors), is "Original Research", per the definitions given at Wikipedia:No original research. In other words, something we try to keep out of Wikipedia.

If you want to refer to Liddell & Scott, then at least refer to the meaning in which the word Politeia, in the Republic dialogue was used according to that Lexicon. See the Politeia article for more on this. --Francis Schonken 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Asserting that Plato did not use the word with full awareness of its ordinary meaning is more than original research, it's psycho-history. There was already a highly interpretive initial gloss of the word. Since this appears for the moment to be a controverted topic, I have returned the initial gloss to a literal state, er, condition. Jon Awbrey 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as far as I'm aware, no author on Plato or on his Republic has ever mentioned this as a possible translation of the title, or even a meaning Plato might have been referring to with this title. So, unless you have a source that links the citizenship meaning with this particular dialogue by Plato, it goes. Liddell & Scott are clear enough about which meaning was intended by Plato when using the word Politeia in the text of this dialogue.
It's as absurd as translating Oidipous turannos by The Tyrant Oedipus, because *accidently* my dictionary mentions the "tyrant" meaning before the "king" meaning for "turannos" (which it does, contrary to LSJ).
And, FYI, my dictionary happens to have "Citizenschip" as fourth meaning of four. I don't get what kind of pseudo-linguistics you're trying out here. --Francis Schonken 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: This is moot since the initial gloss has already been reduced to the minimum, but a careful reading will show that I was not giving a translation of Plato's title but merely glossing the primary meaning of the word that Plato drew on for his title. I think that is uncontroversial and informative here. Thanks for the attribution of originality, but here I was only following the pattern of the gloss that was already in place. Jon Awbrey 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the "primary meaning" you allude to is moot, my dictionary has this meaning as fourth meaning of four for politeia. What you call "primary meaning" is irrelevant, even if this would have been the primary meaning, which is not clear when comparing dictionaries. How you use "primary meaning" is highly controversial (no two dictionaries agree) and does not clarify a thing about the title of the dialogue. --Francis Schonken 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'm not sure what the deal is here. It's clear that we have a complex of words with related meanings, and providing the reader with information about their relationships does not seem like a bad thing. Generally speaking, L&S do tend to give meanings in rough order of primal to derivative. Clearly, "Polis" is a root form, but Plato did not title his work "Peri Polis". As the article stands, you say "The Greek title referred to 'polis'", which is not exactly true, or true only mediately. Maybe the word "primary" is some kind of red flag here, but I was going on the information given that the concrete sense "body of citizens" was found in Aristotle, and I took that to be an adaptation of the other senses. To suggest that Plato did not invoke the entire complex of meanings is highly implausible, just on a common sense basis. Jon Awbrey 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic

Is there someone who could help us editing something about Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic? -- Szvest 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful with argument

Hi all. This is a fascinating subject (new to me). I have removed some "Howevers" from the text though as they don't seem to comply too well with neutral writing. I am referring to WP words to avoid [3]. If I removed any sourced arguments then feel free to restore any and quote the source. Also if the meaning of the terms has changed too much as a result then please feel free to alter the sentence so that it reads correctly without any wpwordstoavoid. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Holes

Education? Homer? Imitative poetry and censorship? Structure and nature of the soul? Ship of State? Myth of Er? Analogy of the sun? The article misses or glazes over many seemingly important topics and analogies. It's also odd to me that the section on justice seems to focus mostly on the beginning of the Republic. Besides all this, the article is unreferenced. Punctured Bicycle 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have some good ideas about where to add content, and I hope you'll go for it. This expert is unable to work on the holes and thinks that a careful non-specialist reader and writer can make vast improvements to this article's quality. It is indeed woefully incomplete and not well-structured. The city-soul analogy (and thus the structure and nature of the soul) is barely mentioned, and the article scarcely gives an impression of Callipolis as the dialogue develops its institutions. Wareh 14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it says something about the Republic itself, I haven't read over the article for sometime, and I am far from an expert, but Punctured Bicycle makes it sound too easy to craft a short wikipedia article on the themes he mentions. This isn't a treatise. "Imitative poetry and censorship?" for example, this is suppost to be easily done, anybody who reads the varying opinion on structure alone might get a hint that there is widely divergent opinion about why and what Socrates is aiming at when he discusses censorship. What can one reasonably expect in this article? Like Wareh states, give it a go to anyone but remeber fools rush in where...something, something.--Mikerussell 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
One can reasonably expect a concise overview of the major topics (see summary style). Punctured Bicycle 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Structure of Plato's Republic article creation debate

There is a related discussion to this article at a newly created web page, Structure of Plato's Republic, and the issues raised above are furthered at this page- Talk:Structure of Plato's Republic. I thought it relevant to mention this here too if others want to read it or comment. --Mikerussell 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nag Hammadi

From Nag Hammadi library#Complete list of codices found in Nag Hammadi:

Codex VI:
...
Republic by Plato - The original is not gnostic, but the Nag Hammadi library version is heavily modified with current gnostic concepts.

Would it be interesting to mention how the Gnostics interpreted or altered Plato's text? --84.20.17.84 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

new edits on Definition of Justice

I made some additions, amendments to this section as it wa swritten rather entropically, and inadequately in my opinion. I didn't really want to start editing b/c I get drawn in and I don't have the time to devote to it, and I am stopping now, but it still needs work. I know I did not add cites as they would help improve/justify the changes I made, but again, I just don't have time now and I am writing this just to let ppl know that I know cites should be added and other improvements continued. --Mikerussell 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


The definition of justice section is unclear on the facts - 1. Socrates does define justice at the end of the book - roughly the principle is the same as any property lawsuits. You shall not take what belongs to another. 2. Socrates discusses two cities. One city is just. The second feverish city is not. 3. If the second city is just we have to explain why it depends on stealing the land of neighboring cities. Socrates second feverish city, the discussion of which is long and drawn out, is an example of Socratic Irony. 3a. Socrates is using Irony, because Glaucon does not believe justice is good. Using injustice to benefit yourself is the best thing you can do. Therefore Socrates has to show Glaucon what happens when you institutionalize injustice. Socrates routinely rubs peoples faces in the logical implications of their beliefs.

Admikkelsen (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Book divisions and section references

The original Republic was not written in "books" or "chapters" but rather as a continuous dialog. In some early reproduction it was divided into ten books, a convention that has pretty much stuck ever since. However there exist popular translations that use different divisions. The 1993 translation by Robert Waterfield, for example, divides it into ten significantly different chapters.

I suggest that the article try to adhere, where possible, to the standard means of referring to Plato's works, which is by use of the Stephanus pagination. For example, The Republic begins at 327a and ends at 621d.

I didn't change the article because I can understand why someone would disagree with this. For example, many editions do not display the Stephanus numbers, however at least most editions use the standard book division. At the very least, the article should specify where the sections it refers to begin and end.

Gdickeson (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that references should be made to Stephanus numbers, but referring to the dialogue in terms of Books is so widespread in the literature that failing to do so would be more of a disservice than a service. RJC Talk Contribs 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Stephanus should definitely be used, and am fine using the Book divisions as well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Article needs summary and synopsis of each book

This article seems poorly structured. As a reader without a great deal of familiarity on this topic, I believe this article should start out with a summary of Plato's Republic, followed by a synopsis of each of the 10 Books therein.

The Topics section itself seems poorly structured, jumping around from Book to Book. In the Definition of Justice section, for example, it starts out with "Justice ultimately becomes..." which seems like belongs at the conclusion rather than the opening of a section. It then discusses Book IV, then jumps to Book I. Each Topics sections should open with a summary of the topic, then trace the topic as it develops chronologically within the Books before endeavoring on a general discussion, analysis and conclusion. Pbr2000 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Virtue of the working class

The current wording "the working-class corresponds to the irrational part of the soul", seems to carry some negative connotations, particularly the word "irrational". Although the classes are clearly ordered with the working class at the bottom, there is a definate sense in Republic that each plays an important part within the society/soul, and thus there should be a more positive word to describe the class. Similarly, I am unsure whether "moderation" is the correct word to describe the virtue of the class. The first two virtues, wisdom and courage, seem to get translated the same by all authors, but there is some variation in the third; I have heard all of obediance, discipline, self-control and willpower. Does this virtue not translate as precisely as the others? 217.155.61.70 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While it may carry negative connotations, it is how it is put in the Republic. Although the iron and bronze class plays an important role in society, it is not for their contribution to policy or to defense, and they possess neither wisdom nor courage (cf. 428e-9a). The alternative translation for sophrosune to moderation is temperance; I've never seen it translated as one of the others. It literally means "sound mind," but in usage it fits most closely with the other two. RJC Talk Contribs 15:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And Howard Zinn thinks....and Russell thinks

Blah! The interpretations. I think you lot should get shot of them? Or at the very least, the structure of this article should be changed. This is most unusual for a Wiki article - the lay out etc. 8"Jobby (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions?

Second that motion. This seems to be about the worst formatted and worst-written articles on Wikipedia. It isn't about Plato's Republic; it reads more like an essay answer to the question, "compare and contrast several modern views of Plato's Republic."
Given that there is no scholarly consensus on what the Republic teaches, I am not sure that this request can be satisfied without running afoul of WP:NPOV. RJC Talk Contribs 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Personally I had grown up knowing the title as being the Republic, had the title been changed now after so many years I don't believe it would be found or known as it was as the searches by people some may not realize what to look for. - It is still a classic whether the translations are the absolute or not. As for this article, to me I don't feel as if the story or the discussions were told but more of what people's opinions on the different matters were(RJ)Remie James (talk)(RJ) —Preceding comment was added at 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Declench

In "if, for example, the regnants refuse to declench a spectacular war", what does this word "declench" mean? Abandon? NickyMcLean (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has no entry at dictionary.com. Given that the parenthetical remark didn't add anything to the sentence — I couldn't even tell what purpose it served — I deleted it. RJC Talk Contribs 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone ever see this before?

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/chi/748263604.html BrianRecchia (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Greek and Latin literal translations

I've added the above to the title-line of the article. I have also added the following paragraph;

(As we know) "the books native Greek name is "politeia", meaning the public nd political life of a community. In Latin this is "res publica", "public business"; Greek works used to be referred to by their Latin or Latinized titles, hence Republic. The book however is not byany stretch of the imagination a treatise on republicanism or Republicanism. Nevertheless, the title is immovable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.153.160 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Ironically the dialogue starts and concludes with a discussion of Justice, not Politics.

Admikkelsen (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not ironic at all. Classical political thought was entirely concerned with justice as the paramount value of political life. Greek politics presumed that the pólis was primarily a moral community of men banded together by a common way of life.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

quote section needs serious editing

The "important" quote section here is ill-conceived. No citations, no context, no speaker given. Should be either deleted or reworked substantially. Doesn't contribute in the least to anyone's understanding of the Republic by 'quoting' unrepresentative sentences or half-sentences (assuming they are even in the Republic - who knows?). Wikipedia at its sloppiest.

I highly recommend deleting entirely. Start from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.221.165 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the section. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Structure really necessary?

An article about a Platonic Dialouge, I wouldn't think would need a section about its structure. In fact, its content is more important and notable than its translations.  Marlith (Talk)  03:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. Since the dialog form carries special challenges for interpreting the 'content,' it is useful to demonstrate several methods by which form and content have been interpreted together. 128.164.242.214 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Explicit Statement

I'm sorry about doing this incorrectly, but I've never edited on this site before. I know I'm not following protocol, so I am sorry. I just thought it appropriate to note that there is a random sexually explicit sentence at the beginning of this article which does not show up on the edit screen. I don't know how to take care of it, so could someone else figure it out? Feel free to delete this edit, also. I just didn't know how to start a topic. 146.86.68.135 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)***

Not a problem. Could you be more specific? I don't see any explicit sentence at the beginning, and the template at the top (whose contents wouldn't show up in the edit screen) hasn't been changed recently. RJC TalkContribs 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

not all poetry forbidden

I have read platos republic and he says that the censors should select good poems to be told to the children and bad poems which should not rather than prohibition of poetry per se.

Fiction

"In Plato's fictional dialogues the characters of Socrates..." Why fictional? Can someone at least point out an on-line citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.152.45 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Plato's Justice

The section on Platonic Justice is long and not clear. I propose adding this summary in a paragraph at the begining of the section:


--Shahab (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the section on justice is a bit difficult, this summary looks like original research. I also think that it is wrong. A simple statement on what Plato says about justice is bound to be controversial. RJC TalkContribs 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There are many different statements about justice throughout the text. Some of them directly contradict some of the assumptions in the above statement - in particular classes. Admikkelsen (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit -- add an essay-review by a novelist?

Tillman, I meant no offence in my reversion, and can tell that you're a laudable editor. But as I said, I believe a novelist's blog is neither a RS nor noteworthy enough, to be included in the reception section for Plato's Republic. Are there other opinions on this? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It would certainly give an undue weight to the blogger in question to have her musings a) be reported at length as Plato's impact in the 21st century and b) be listed alongside Cicero, Tacitus, Augustine, Hegel, Voegelin, Russell, Strauss, Popper, and Gadamer. These points are unrelated to the fact that this blogger's musings are limited to how she never thought seriously about the Republic, which on its own would suffice to make her thoughts irrelevant to an article on the dialogue. RJC TalkContribs 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. But it is a nice essay/review, and people do read The Republic for pleasure (I did). Perhaps we should add a "Republic in pop culture" para?
Note: the site is more of a publishers newsletter -- it's not the authors personal blog, and she is paid (IB) for her columns there. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Depending on how the Republic fits into her work, it might be appropriate on her page. It really is unrelated to anything we'd expect to find on the Republic page, though. Her testimony is too narrow to support a statement that people in general continue to read the Republic for pleasure, although a sentence to that effect might be appropriate in the lede if we had a source attesting to the fact that many people do so (myself included). RJC TalkContribs 23:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm opposed to "in pop culture" sections on principle, but I'm not sure if that's backed up by policy. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Judging from the number of such I've seen, they seem popular, and (I presume) permitted. As to her page, she's done hundreds of book reviews, so no reason to single it out. Hmm. I'll sleep on it. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Policy neither supports nor opposes pop culture sections. Still, I don't know that a book review counts as a pop culture reference in quite the same way as the Samurai Trilogy references Miyamoto Musashi. RJC TalkContribs 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Humm, I notice that the above remarks about women being "held in common" are being made by a woman, in contrast to the the bright suggestions about women being made by male philosophers. Though Socrates was noted for hearing women, otherwise the philosophical discussion was single-sexed, and there could be some critical commentary on this. Likewise on power relationships, as in Athenian democracy not being applicable to the slaves. Or women. NickyMcLean (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Revised proposal:

Reading The Republic for pleasure (New section, to precede "See also")

In a 2010 essay, novelist Jo Walton discusses reading The Republic for pleasure: [cite Essay on Plato by Jo Walton, 2010.]

I read Plato the way I read science fiction, and at the same time. So the science fictional republic in The Republic was right up my street. In fact, the first novel I ever completed, at fifteen or sixteen, was about an attempt to set up Plato’s Republic where everything went wrong with it because people are human. Even at fifteen I couldn’t read a sentence like “the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent” without immediately starting to think of how this would all get snarled up because people will persist in falling in love.

I think this makes a nice counterpoint to the more serious preceding sections, and avoids the problem of setting a minor novelist on the same level as Hegel, Popper et al. Comments? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (Note that NickyMcLean's comments below preceded this revision.)

I don't see how this addresses the problem of WP:UNDUE or why we need to quote this woman on her personal experiences regarding Plato at all. RJC TalkContribs 22:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, Ms. Walton agrees: "I don't think my burbling about Plato ought to be in that article!" see last comment. Heh. Fanboy slinks away.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Polemarchus, Thraysamacus and Cephalus

Shouldn't the three of them be mentioned somewhere in the article as participants in the dialogue? We mention the three major participants (Socrates, Glaucon and Adeimantus), but not them Purplebackpack89 01:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Original Texts

Shouldn't there be some mention of how this document comes down to us today? How many copies are there? Are there differences between the texts? What's the oldest known copy? These are some questions I have, at least.Nabaati (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Lugevas (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Transmission of the Greek Classics. Lugevas (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Contents

All interpretation by individuals should be removed (that's currently "Contents" and every section that follows) in favor of a simple outline of what Plato actually wrote. That could then be followed by whatever interpretation a recent consensus of Plato scholars can accept. BlueMist 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NY Amateur (talk • contribs)

There is no such consensus, not even on what a summary of what Plato wrote should include. RJC TalkContribs 14:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Strauss treated twice?

Why have both this and this? I suggest merging the first one into the second one, which is in an appropriate section about various interpretations. Am I missing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

-- It just seems weird that, other than them being scions of "conservative" thought, that Leo Strauss would be mentioned here more than say Augustine of Hippo.

Requested move 27 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is the proposed title is the most common form. Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


The Republic (Plato) → Republic (Plato) – Per WP:UCRN, Republic is the commonly recognizable name of this work, not The Republic. Compare "Plato's Republic" to "Plato's The Republic" in Google Books results (83,400 vs 3170, respectively). Sonĝanto (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't know which form is actually more common in general, but the suggested search is no evidence either way. Of course "Plato's The Republic" is not very common, but that doesn't say anything about whether the work is commonly called "The Republic". 209.211.131.181 (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is intuitive to exclude "The" from a title if it is genuinely part of the title. I would not say Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, I would say Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Similarly, I would say John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, not John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. Additionally, all of Plato's other works exclude "The" from the title. Michipedian (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The common form is "The Republic"; hence the current version is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reference? Michipedian (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC) 17:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The Republic per William M. Connolley and common name. The first source on the page lists the Latin form of the title, with the 'De' included. Randy Kryn 15:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
As Michipedian points out, William M. Connolley gives no references for the "common form" claim. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it's difficult for me to see how a Latin version of the title would be relevant to our search for the most common English title of a work written in Greek. And, even if the Latin title is relevant, "De" is not the Latin equivalent of "The" (in fact, there is no precise Latin equivalent of "The").--Lemuellio (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:THE: "If there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia page name with an article."--Lemuellio (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and the comments immediately above. —  AjaxSmack  00:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comedy

It's also a comedy about Athenian politics, and quite sarcastic at that. Do I need a citation for this also, herr fuhrer? 184.146.147.128 (talk)

This article is a complete misrepresentation of the substance to this text. In Plato's words, "The spirit of this text has not been correctly repli/dupli/immitated".
ie: The introduction, as they're traveling to the festival is a joke about Athenian democracy, but also has hallmarks of aristocracy and tyranny (monarchy). It then makes some sarcastic comments about those political systems, as I noted on the Talk:Oligarchy page, which I'll quote here (half a dozen others, not quote):
Here's Socrates on the matter (Republic, Book 1: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html), essentially describing what I just defined as Aristocracy (those who 'think themselves' to be the best), although he doesn't mention Aristocracy specifically, but that's the implication, dear Polemarchus: "I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban, or some other rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of his own power, was the first to say that justice is 'doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.'" - and later Thrasymachus - "And the different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical, tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; <snip> which is the interest of the stronger." - and Socrates responds - "It is true, however, that in your definition the words 'of the stronger' are added." - Later - "Then, I said, Thrasymachus, there is no one in any rule who, in so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoins what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject or suitable to his art; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything which he says and does." (obvious sarcasm implied) - All the while, they're discussing Monarchy and Aristocracy, ending with the imagined end/purpose of an excellent or 'just monarch/ruler' (similarities to Hobbes). Although Monarchies (a type of Aristocracy), as they just described, were anything but. 184.146.142.94 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
ie: "Shall we begin education with music, and go on to gymnastic afterwards?", "And literature may be either true or false?", "And the young should be trained in both kinds, and we begin with the false?", "You know, I said, that we begin by telling children stories which, though not wholly destitute of truth, are in the main fictitious; and these stories are told them when they are not of an age to learn gymnastics." - (a dystopian education system, for the purposes of satire).
ie: "Yes, Socrates, he said, and if you were providing for a city of pigs, how else would you feed the beasts?", "But what would you have, Glaucon? I replied.", "Why, he said, you should give them the ordinary conveniences of life. People who are to be comfortable are accustomed to lie on sofas, and dine off tables, and they should have sauces and sweets in the modern style." - (in fact, metaphorically referring to aristocrats as pigs and beasts, not the common people as is first alluded to; although one could argue that one is from Glaucon's perspective, the other from Socrates', the point remains).
ie: "Then we must enlarge our borders; for the original healthy State is no longer sufficient.", "And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before?", "Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours". - (Followed by this part, comparing the borders of a state to the expansion of their bellies and waist lines).
The entire portion about banning certain types of literature/poetry is obvious sarcasm, and is simply being used to highlight the injustice of the gods, and further illustrate how injustice becomes justice. Obviously, one can be a master in both tragedy and comedy, but there are many other ironies and supposed contradictions like this one, which all suggest satire, and the ability of the writer to 'immitate' more than 1 style, contrary to their 'supposed' line of reasoning. It's basically all rhetorical. They highlight the deficiencies of this type of thinking book 3, in that it's self-contradictory.
There are about 2 dozen other references I've realized thus far, but I'm not about to post an entire analysis here. I'm just stating the facts as they are... This entire article is nonsense, and fails to comprehend this text. There are even jokes about pre-Christian concepts such as Indulgences, and Glaucon, the stereotypical aristocrat being the only one to make sacrifices. There are jokes about the gods not being real, etc...
If you are reading this text literally (seriously), then you're doing it wrong, and in fact have turned the problem on its head. This seems to be a classic subversion of Philosophy...
In fact, I think Book X sum this up, as this article itself alludes to. It's all a practical joke, played on an unsuspecting reader; things aren't always as they appear on the surface (echoes back to the nature of justice vs injustice, forms, truth, and pretty much the content of the entire text). That's probably why they condemned Socrates to death; too sarcastic for their aristocrats. 184.146.142.94 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
So this is mentioned in the article, but only in the section on 20th century interpretations. These should be key points, and not anecdotes at the bottom of a wall of mostly meaningless text... 184.146.142.94 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Proof that aristocracy is not the ideal system (book VI): "Nothing more on that subject, he replied; but I should like to know which of the governments now existing is in your opinion the one adapted to her." (her = philosophy, one of the governments mentioned as existing was aristocracy) "Not any of them, I said; and that is precisely the accusation which I bring against them --not one of them is worthy of the philosophic nature, and hence that nature is warped and estranged;" - In fact, the system he was ironically 'idealizing' was that of the Lacedaemonians (Spartans) apparently, but it's self-contradictory. He later refutes this entire system in book VI; whereas he previously said children should be educated in 'untruths' before gymnastic, he now states the opposite and faults society for the issue. When he jokes of banning Homer, or striking certain passages from the text, he was simply illustrating how the 'powers that be' manipulate public perception through alterations to the originals by censure (disapproval/disagreement, root of censor), or through dissemination of 'official' state/public literature. He notes that it was more popular amongst the lower classes. Speculation; the aristocracy tried to ban Iliad/Odyssey because they didn't portray Greeks in the 'best light', so to speak? 184.146.142.94 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Final nail in this coffin: "--he was to be rejected who failed, but he who always came forth pure, like gold tried in the refiner's fire, was to be made a ruler, and to receive honours and rewards in life and after death. This was the sort of thing which was being said, and then the argument turned aside and veiled her face; not liking to stir the question which has now arisen." - (Lacedaemonians), "as not of much service to me, for I had to discuss them all the same. The women and children are now disposed of, but the other question of the rulers must be investigated from the very beginning." ('disposed of' is being used as a metaphor) - "Yes, my friend, I said, and I then shrank from hazarding the bold word; but now let me dare to say --that the perfect guardian must be a philosopher." - (Lacedaemonians seem to be the archetypal 'guardian class' they were discussing previously, thus discarding/disposing of their previous idealized state, which they termed 'the first state' or aristocracy, Sparta metaphorically; and replacing it completely). 184.146.142.94 (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The mention of soldiers taking their women and children to battle has a pretty striking resemblance to the Sea Peoples. In the reign of Merneptah and Ramesses III, they're described in much the same way. He makes this observation amongst discussions of Homer and literature/poetry. 184.146.142.94 (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Here you have the actual 4 principles of a guardian-philosopher, or faculties, which are nowhere mentioned on the wiki: "You have quite conceived my meaning, I said; and now, corresponding to these four divisions, let there be four faculties in the soul-reason answering to the highest, understanding to the second, faith (or conviction) to the third, and perception of shadows to the last-and let there be a scale of them, and let us suppose that the several faculties have clearness in the same degree that their objects have truth." - (reason, understanding, resolution, perception), which concludes book VI. 184.146.142.94 (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yea, the entire synopsis is false. It either needs to be re-written or scrapped, ie (book VII): "Suppose, I said, the study of philosophy to take the place of gymnastics and to be continued diligently and earnestly and exclusively for twice the number of years which were passed in bodily exercise --will that be enough?" (hence, years 15-18 in gymnastics, are supplanted by years 15-21 in philosophy instead... scrap the gymnastics aka. 'martial arts'; although it's unclear if that takes the place of military training as well, it most likely does and both fall under the same discipline; thus warfare is now also stripped from the equation. Glaucon states the period is 5 years - 3 gymnastic + 2 military - not 6, which is twice 3. There's a LOT of sarcasm/metaphor in here, like the part about philosophers being 'bastard children' of sorts, who's real parents are unknown to them... It's not at all what this wiki describes). 184.146.142.94 (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I made some basic edits, but I don't really like the way this entire article is worded. It doesn't properly convey the meaning of the text. For example, the original ideal 'aristocratic' state they developed (then later replaced by their imagined 'aristocracy' ruled by a philosopher king) was in fact based on ancient Sparta (Lacedaemon), but in book IX they compare Sparta/Crete to timocracy. Thus, aristocracy belongs amongst the unjust forms of government as they originally described it (before supplanting that definition). On other occassions they use aristocracy to refer to this new ideal they devised, ruled by a philosopher-king, and not an aristocrat; whom they often deride. In other words, they are trying to re-define the term aristocracy into one which is ruled by wisdom/truth, embodied by reason, understanding, resolution, and perception (instead of the old aristocratic values of strength/might/power). This should not be confused for the true meaning of the word aristocracy. In another case it's translated as 'royal' instead, but I don't have the original Greek source, nor do I read Greek, ie: "--they are the royal, timocratical, oligarchical, democratical, tyrannical." (book IX) - In a sense, it could be substituted by the word 'noble', not in the inherited/aristocratic sense, but the 'noble arts' which they consider to be philosophy (thus, they have in fact replaced the definition of 'aristocracy'). 184.146.142.94 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
So basically, Plato's (3x3)^3 representing the king/tyrant is the biblical equivalent of revelation 17:9-11 "the king is the beast", and the number of the beast is 666; interesting, and just like Hobbes' "Who is like the beast? Who can fight against him?" in reference to the king, which is from revelation 13:4 (Leviathan from Job/Isaiah). Anecdotally; there's also a peculiar joke dealing with fractions. 1000/333 (700 wives and 300 concubines of Solomon) = 3.00300300... (repeating), and the number 300 represents God in the Hebrew letter Shin (S), for El Shaddai (God the almighty) and El Shaddad (God the destroyer). TIL: Book X mentions the number 10,000 twice, which amount to the same result, multiplied by 10. Alternatively, in hindsight, it could refer to the Thirty Tyrants, to which the numbers 3,000 and 300 are also connected. There's definitely some truth to that, as the page on Polemarchus demonstrates. 184.146.142.94 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It probably can't get more obvious than this (end of book IX): "I understand; you mean that he will be a ruler in the city of which we are the founders, and which exists in idea only; for I do not believe that there is such an one anywhere on earth?" - "But whether such an one exists, or ever will exist in fact, is no matter;" (removed the biblical parts) - ie: It's all in your head. 184.146.142.94 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This also makes obvious what I said earlier about Homer (book X): "but we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our State." (obvious sarcasm implying official state literature) "Let a man do what is just, whether he have the ring of Gyges or not, and even if in addition to the ring of Gyges he put on the helmet of Hades." (and I think that settles the argument about poetry; there is no justice without injustice. One must learn to spot both, which was the argument of this entire work). 184.146.142.94 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_(Plato)/Archive_1&oldid=1093187411"