Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

50 greatest books

The Republic

SIMON BLACKBURN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:11 AM EDT 21/02/08

Plato's masterpiece is as relevant today as it was in 375 BC ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. a c from edmonton, Canada writes: This ain't no Globe piece. It's frustrating when a writer can't connect to his reader.
  2. joe q. taxpayer from Calgary, Canada writes: that comment begs for a reply dripping with sarcasm...

    obviously anyone who uses the "word" ain't would not have the background that several hundreds of other g&m readers might have to connect with this article.
  3. John Deriso from Canada writes: Human nature really hasn't changed at all in thousands of years, has it?

    Plato's work remains important only because we can't move on. We're still monkeys throwing rocks at each other. Political philosophy has been silent because there's not much else to say, Plato and Machiavelli said it all. Let's go beyond the taxonomy of humanity, collecting and tagging all of our strengths and weaknesses, it's how we as a society thrust ourselves out of this human rut. The philosopher kings have no place in liberal democracy. Now what? That's the question: now what? We've had 2,382 years to deal with Plato's ideas, and it's still all the same nonsense, democracy, tyranny, theocracy, free market, communist, whatever system we human beings have toyed with in all this time.....we're still the same people we were when Plato wrote "The Republic". So now what?
  4. Mister J from Canada writes: I can't tell what this article is asking us to read - Plato's Republic, or this biographic drivel. Once again, media favours the person, not the ideas. ...perhaps the Republic would shed light on this!

    Plato's Republic contains many scenes and conversations that almost anyone will find interesting and relevant to our times, but importantly to our own lives - how do YOU want to live? The opening scene of Book One is particularly fascinating.

    If anyone is interested in Plato's Republic, I'd suggest the definitive edition/translation: Allan Bloom's "The Republic of Plato" (Basic Books). It contains a clear and faithful translation with many footnotes for deeper readers, and an interpretive essay by Bloom. And, I assure you that the Republic is more pleasurable to read that the tight, dry pseudo-philosophical prose of this article.
  5. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: Plato's book belongs on the Top 50 list because it is a brilliant very early articulation of what many of us still deeply suspect about democracy (and other more clearly wrong) forms of civic organization. Being on the Top 50 list doesn't mean readers should believe and die gloriously for it in the name of Gawd - just read and test.
  6. JEANNE FARINE from Vancouver, Canada writes: Plato perceived and recorded some basic traits in the makeup of human beings...aspects that have remained remarkably evident after so long a span of time and change. And the philosopher-teacher could write brilliantly and at the same time, clearly...Perhaps one of his most valuable lessons for us is that every assumed truth should be regularly re-examined, and particularly so in the realm of human organization, both social and political. I taught classes on Plato once upon a time...yet I keep learning from him, always.
  7. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Plato would not allow poetry in his Republic. Our HRC's will not allow free expression in our's. Plus ca change...
  8. Jim Cohoon from Chilliwack, Canada writes: A good book as a companion to this one is Karl Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'. He argues that Plato (through books such as The Republic) has had a 'totalitarian' influence. Unlikely, but regardless, I find the 'philosopher-king' a very worthy ideal for its time, though normally, in any era, only partially capable of realization, such as in Marcus Aurelius, who, after all, was an emperor first, and a philosopher second. Some said Pierre Trudeau was similar to a 'philosopher-king', modified for a modern democracy. One can certainly find and 'project' many ideas and perspectives into this seminal book; indeed, it seems to have been one of the first recorded examples of the use of 'projection' as a means to explain social phenomena, as when Plato writes: "we may assume that the individual has the same three principles in his own soul which are found in the State; for it is from the individual that the State derives them.... Must not injustice be a strife which arises from among the same three principles -- a rising up of a part of the soul against the whole." Remarkable stuff for 375 BC. As remarkable perhaps is that not only has our current civilization not improved much on the book's core insights, but indeed it seems to be (if recent decades make a trend) regressing back into the philosophical darkness of 'the cave'.
  9. Opinion in Toronto from Toronto, Canada writes: What's really important about The Republic is that it is based on reason, not faith or revelation. This was the first proposal we know of to separate the state from religion and to ask what sort of social arrangements really benefit and fulfill human nature. It stands opposed to all theocracies and is even more relevant today as we see much of the world immersed in God-dictatorships.
  10. andre alexis from Canada writes: i can't begin to understand what "mr j" is talking about. simon blackburn's essay is not "biographical" (whose biography are you accusing him of drivelling out? his own? plato's? there's precious little biographical information about either, in blackburn's essay.) it's an attempt, in 600 or so words, to give an account of a founding book in western philosophy, to give a sense of the ideas that plato grapples with and suggest how and why "the republic" is still relevant. blackburn gives a very good sense of the ideas plato was grappling with and manages to advert to some of the problems with the book for liberal thinkers. in no way is blackburn's essay "pseudo-philosophical". for one thing: his goal is a giving account of "the republic" not, in 600 words, a scrutiny of its objectves or a detailed criticism of its failings.
    maybe, the fatuousness of the responses to essays like blackburn's (with the first poster objecting that he "cain't understand" (and so what? are we supposed to sink to your level?) and "mr j" stupidly insulting simon blackburn while putting in a plug for his pet translation of the republic) is the reason our media "favours the person, not the ideas".
    you don't need plato to tell you that, do you?
  11. Bryson Brown from Lethbridge, Canada writes: Popper had a point-- and it's relevant today, too. Blackburn passed over Plato's elitism, which involves systematically deceiving and manipulating the populace for the 'greater good'. Of course you can't cover everything-- but I think this aspect of Plato's position deserves attention, especially now: Leo Strauss, a father-figure to the neo-conservative movement, drew heavily on this aspect of Plato's utopian project.
  12. Brian Mulroney from Canada writes: The author mistakenly assumed the neo-conservatives of today read "Republic"... I think they were reading "The Republic of Plato", in which Plato's work is presented as an actual political blueprint at the expense of what Plato wrote.

    ...on a completely different note, it too often appears that G&M readers read the G&M cause they assume the majority of people as "well-educated" as them read the G&M. The erroneous assumption of course is not what other "well-educated" people read, but what it means to be educated.
  13. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that The Republic is a philosophical masterwork.

    Yet Popper is also an astute critic and a thought-provoking philosopher in his own right, as some have mentioned. Bryson, you are right on the money regarding Leo Strauss.

    All the moreso in light of the fact that (of all people) Ayn Rand seems to have picked up quite the following amongst impressionable philosophical illiterates. Oh, the irony...
  14. Dude Rancher from toronto, Canada writes: I'm a bit surprised at some of the negative comments here. Trying to sum up the importance of a book as important and complex as the Republic, in a few hundred words meant for the average reader, must be enormously difficult, and (apart from the silly comparison with US neoconservatism) I think he's done a pretty good job.
    Also, Plato's challenge to us is really on a much more profound level than politics--it's to the way we see reality itself.
  15. Brian Mulroney from Canada writes: "Also, Plato's challenge to us is really on a much more profound level than politics--it's to the way we see reality itself."

    ....yeah, its just like the Matrix. Wait a sec, this isnt the Now Magazine forums?
  16. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Dude from Toronto criticizes the columnist's "SILLY comparison with US neoconservatism".

    That criticism is well deserved, for multiple reasons.

    For example, the columnist's criticism of what he calls an "inability to deal with its own poor and sick" is not even a feature of "neoconservatism". That "inability", as he calls it, was a feature of the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton presidencies every bit as much as it was a feature of the Bush and Reagan presidencies. And Jimmy Carter was the total polar opposite of a neoconservative.

    So as far as recent American history goes, the columnist might as well have tried to tag "it snows in the winter" on neoconservatives.

    Further, the term "neoconservatives" does not identify the 2001 to 2004 governments of Canada, Belgium, Denmark or Norway, and yet folks from all those countries have been on the ground in Afghanistan - with the blessings of America's left during that period - helping to use force ("might") to keep the Taliban down ("make right").

    Contrary to the columnist's bizarre insinuation, there is no such thing as neoconservative society: There is only American society. Perhaps it was from that first false premise of his that he tripped and fell down into the remainder of the silly attempt at comparison that followed.
  17. J Kay from Canada writes: opinion in TO: Just a comment, while Plato's is remembered down through the ages, he was not the first to do such things. Indeed his teacher Socrates, did the same and preceeded him. So did Thales of Melitus, who preceeded both of them, was considered by no less a philosophical icon than Betrand Russell to be the father of philosophy (and science and naturalism). He was one of the 7 sages of Greece, thought to be the first.

    Regarding Plato, while certainly one can read him or arguably any Greek philosopher and see elements of what they talked about relevant to todays world, Plato was elitist, wrong about certain things, and advocated for the idea of the Platonic or Noble lie.

    Keynes once wrote: "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist" or philosopher as the case may be.
  18. Jake Jay from Toronto, Canada writes: This academic massaging of the mind is of no interest to the 95% of us whose time is taken up with merely surviving and taking care of our immediate problems.
  19. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: Plato in general will always remain relevant until the last drops of Western thought become extinct.

    But relevance does not equate to correctness.
  20. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from St Albert, Canada writes: Plato's Republic was one of the very first 'non fiction' books I read when I grew past the plots of traditional fiction reserved for us 'working class' types. (sic) The concept of dichomity - is it a new meme? - for I ran across it in "Aristotle's Children", Richard E Rubenstein.

    Thank you for your thoughtful contribution Mr Blackburn. (The Republic really is less guilt-ridden than Aurelius' work!)
  21. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: This is a heavy read, definitely beyond most of the hysterical G&M readers, ie. 500 or so comments about Harper/Dion, and 20 about Plato. That says something about the average Canadian. Anyway, the notion of a benevolent philosopher-king is a beautiful ideal, but rarely achievable in practice because Western thought is largely based in reductionism, as the article hints at. It must indeed have been a wonderful time to be alive, when the very foundations of science and philosophy were being laid down. By analogy, just as physicists long for a Grand Unification Theory, during this early time of civilization, science, mathematics, art and philosophy were all unified at an intuitive level in these early thinkers; no real distinction was made between quantitative and qualitative thought. This is VERY foreign to our thinking patterns today. The recognition that there is an instrinsic beauty in goodness, and all truth has inherent goodness and beauty, etc., is a kind of holistic thinking that is obviously lost on most people. This is why people lead trivial, non-descript existences, because they have no intellectual criteria or instinct by which to judge which thoughts and ideas are better than others. For this reason, we have perverse situations where Sharia law, for reasons of "equality" are given due consideration as a parallel legal system. BUT if one were to evaluate it in terms of "truth", "beauty", and "goodness" it would be found profoundly wanting. Same could be said for many other "isms" and "ologies" that regularly pollute the "World of Ideas" in our society. Politicians of today are typically lawyers. In Plato's time they were called The Sophists. The activity of "sophistry" is similar to the trite debate that goes on today in the House of Commons. No one is interested in "THE perfect truth," only "their truth". Political truth is only for the moment, philosophical truth is for the ages. THATS the difference!! S. (minor in philosophy!!)
  22. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: Anyway, the notion of a benevolent philosopher-king is a beautiful ideal, but rarely achievable in practice because Western thought is largely based in reductionism, as the article hints at. It must indeed have been a wonderful time to be alive, when the very foundations of science and philosophy were being laid down. By analogy, just as physicists long for a Grand Unification Theory, during this early time of civilization, science, mathematics, art and philosophy were all unified at an intuitive level in these early thinkers; no real distinction was made between quantitative and qualitative thought. This is VERY foreign to our thinking patterns today. The recognition that there is an instrinsic beauty in goodness, and all truth has inherent goodness and beauty, etc., is a kind of holistic thinking that is obviously lost on most people. This is why people lead trivial, non-descript existences, because they have no intellectual criteria or instinct by which to judge which thoughts and ideas are better than others. For this reason, we have perverse situations where Sharia law, for reasons of "equality" are given due consideration as a parallel legal system. BUT if one were to evaluate it in terms of "truth", "beauty", and "goodness" it would be found profoundly wanting. Same could be said for many other "isms" and "ologies" that regularly pollute the "World of Ideas" in our society. Politicians of today are typically lawyers. In Plato's time they were called The Sophists. The activity of "sophistry" is similar to the trite debate that goes on today in the House of Commons. No one is interested in "THE perfect truth," only "their truth". Political truth is only for the moment, philosophical truth is for the ages. THATS the difference!! S. (minor in philosophy!!)
  23. M. U. from Canada writes: A large part of Western philosophy is based on reason and rationality, while the political reality is deeply rooted in the exercise of power: political, economic and the military in particular. The fact that the Republic is as relevant to us today as it is over 2000 years ago is testmony that might/power, not reason, has rendered such a long lasting corrupting influence on us that we are no better off today than we were in the Platonic time. In the post 911 world of today, reason matters even less, if not entirely lost at all.
  24. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: While I understand the author's point, I think he missed the opportunity to bring the discussion down to the level of the average person. Instead he's employed a level of word choice that many simply will not be able to follow.

    While it may be difficult not to lose some meaning when simplifying such discussions, and while some amount of effort should be required of individuals to understand the concepts, if a simple word can be used, then it should be used. Orwell's "politics and the english language" advocates this position quite well.
  25. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: How odd that a writer trying to impress upon us the importance of having a historical perspective would think that American societal problems sprang up overnight with the election of Bush.
  26. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    Philosopher King, its not the fault of the author that people are mentally flabby. However my post shows potent insight, and elaborates on the ideas with personal style.

    Joe Liberali, Western civilization will survive. There is no way it will succumb to Islamism, despite the efforts of Liberals, and liberals alike.

    Jake Jay, if you have no respect for philosophy, you are one of those people leading a non-descript, trivial existence. As a philosopher once said, "the unexamined life is not worth living." Despite your bravado, you are a pitiable man.

    Jeff Pritchard, I agree with you. Ayn Rand is for pseudo intellectuals; mere tourists of philosophy.

    John Deriso, you are right that the Republic's relevance comes from the fact that human nature has not changed much in all this time, but you are a tad pessimistic. I think that over time, societies DO evolve and become more perfect. Each of the various things you mention are experiments in idealogy that are tried and tested and perhaps modified and tried again. Its slow and usually painful, but thats how republics evolve.
  27. Dr Riff from Canada writes: actually, Thrasymachus destroyed Socrates' argument with a reductio ad absurdum causing Socrates to present a filibuster defending himself (philosopher-ruler class)
  28. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: Its important that we reconnect with the knowledge and wisdom of our ancestors, and reengage with an honest quest to understand ourselves better and to know what it is to be human. As Carl Jung pointed out, for the future the real great danger and the only real threat to our existence is man himself. We are the origin of all coming evil. The question is can we be concious of that truth.
  29. Mister J from Canada writes: andre alexis from Canada writes: i can't begin to understand what "mr j" is talking about. simon blackburn's essay is not "biographical" (whose biography are you accusing him of drivelling out? his own? plato's? there's precious little biographical information about either, in blackburn's essay.)

    Well, the end of the article says: "Simon Blackburn is author of Plato's Republic: A Biography."

    My point is that there is an overwhelming tendency in the media to focus on the person, not the issue or ideas. And we see it again here. Not really Prof. Blackburn's fault - he's just giving us what he wants. Interestingly, this 'pandering to the masses' is dealt with in the Republic! (Why democracy isn't so great).

    andre alexis also says that I 'stupidly' insult the author. I'd suggest that you insult me by using the word 'stupidly'! I'm sure Prof. Blackburn, as a professor, is used to students or colleagues disagreeing - all part of the process of "drawing us out of the muddy bog."

    What you call my "plug" for my "pet translation" is rather a suggestion to readers here that are looking for a good translation (there are so many bad ones!), since this book of Prof. Blackburn's is "a biography."

    Perhaps I shouldn't call this article 'pseudo-intellectualism' - a bit nasty I suppose. My point is that Plato's Republic expresses many difficult problems in a very accessible way. On the other hand, Prof Blackburn writes sentences in what I would call a 'terse prose' that both announces his authority as a 'real philosopher' and excludes anyone not familiar or impresses by this needless density. My point is that ANYONE can sit down and read a Plato dialogue.

    Oh, and ps: not all poets are excluded from the Republic, just the bad ones! In other words, the writers of poetry that are not of the 'right opinion' and lead their readers away, not towards, the truth.
  30. val tonik from Canada writes: Indeed, "Republic" is a wonderful book, a manual on how to establish an ideal state, a Republic. But Plato was a master of dialectics and therefore his "Republic" needs to be looked at together with the following work- "The Laws", a pragmatic look at the possible implementation of ideals laid out in the Republic. What do we have then? If we want to have an ideal state, the laws must be enforced. For instance- we should all love and respect our government, who are like Egyptian pharaohs- the initiates of esoteric wisdom, the philosophers. But then, what if someone, whether an individual or a group, will dare to go against the government? Punish them, severely, so others will learn the lesson. What if someone stills? - Public punishment, or even an execution and so on.

    That is the only way an ideal Republic can function according to Plato. Everyone should be a master of his or her skill. Every deed, every product should be aimed for common good of the citizens. But if something or someone goes astray- beware of laws. Is it good or bad? Dialectically- neither, or…both.
  31. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: Joe Liberali, Western civilization will survive. There is no way it will succumb to Islamism, despite the efforts of Liberals, and liberals alike.

    Huh? Can you turn down the crazy just a bit.
  32. Active Observer from Canada writes: Something that hasn't been mentioned yet:

    In the dialogue, Socrates discusses the Republic (the city) as an analogy for the self, and how to live as an individual, that is, in harmony with all of its parts, each part doing what it does best. It was a guide for well-being, ethics and aspiration towards wisdom.

    Not that the politics presented weren't insightful, but I wanted to put it in context.
  33. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    Joe Liberali, you are the nutbar.

    The fact that the Republic is still relevant means it is probably holding deeper truths than the sludge you usually read.
  34. Mister J from Canada writes: Active Observer: an excellent point!

    The basis of the Republic is to figure out what justice is. Socrates argues that if they can figure out what it is in 'the big' (a city) it will be easier to recognize and then they can locate it in 'the small' (the soul). A couple cliches somewhat capture what it is that justice turns out to be - in my opinion (!): "Minding one's own business" and "everything in it's right place" (think Radiohead). It's about order, the right ordering of the soul and city.

    Perhaps fascinating: the opening scene where Socrates visits the old man who tells Socrates that it's nice to be old as he's finally freed of the "mad masters" of desire. But this is a comment on how one lives with their desires - are you controlled by them, and happy in later life when you finally calm down? Or, are you able to control them and be happy throughout your life?
  35. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: A great article by Mr. Blackburn! And if all of Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato, it must include existentialism. The calling upon of individuals to come to life, to come face to face with their being and their finitude. There is just one dichotomy - the automatisms that we all repeat day after day versus the possibility of becoming true (authentic) in our relations with others and the world. Finding concreteness. That is too scary for most of us and that is why we find refuge in the automatisms. If we all became individuals, what a world we would be able to create. I am hoping to start reading an introduction to Heidegger (I will certainly never try to read Heidegger himself, in translation). I am afraid to read it. It is calling on me to be an individual. I will start it and I will do my best to answer the call. Funny isn't it- the answers to our problems are in our own philosophical heritage. And that takes me back to the dichotomy of true versus rote existence. The philosphers speak common sense. It's just that they are too rigorous. That is why we have poets. True poets bring us always to existence, to our concrete being. Much better than worrying about the markets and the wars. Oh well, many are called and few are chosen. Thank you, Mr. Blackburn, for a beautiful article which shows how philosphy can actually speak to ordinary people.
  36. lotusland maritimer from Sault Ste Marie, Canada writes: It must be the first time ever that I reread a G&M article not because of its worth or difficulty but to see if I can find what others found hard. There is no technical philosophical jargon in it no epistemology or ontology or metaphysics not at all. It's all in Basic English with very few words which most semi literate might understand. Maybe they had a problem with Realpolitik but you can figure out its meaning from the context and the German spelling. I do find the grammar less than enlightening one gets the feeling that long complex sentences were cut down to barely functional abbreviated phrases thereby losing all nuance and qualification as well as comprehensibility. Mais revenons a nos moutons. Back to brass tacks. Plato is at issue not the don. But first when he tried to explain Plato by giving contemporary examples he did not necessarily join one side or the other but used the notion of neocon to make it easy even for simpletons what the issues are. He could have just as well used the CCCP say. At least I hope. Actually I think the Republic is a bad choice just as if someone chose Boece or The Rape of Lucrece instead of the Canterbury Tales or Hamlet etc. Too long and rather exclusively treating political science rather than the greater issues of philosophy as do the dialogues. Raphael placed Timaeus in Platos hand, clearly the favourite of the Renaissance. Other ages favoured the Symposium, and so on. Platos thought of course becomes a major hurdle in the hands of commentators but in the original is simply the greatest writing bar none, in fact no one may be mentioned in his company certainly no philosopher except possibly Dante or Shakespeare. When you read other philosophers most are barely comprehensible even the clearest French or English ones but Plato is a joy and a thrill even in translation. In his hands philosophy and thinking are as simple and natural as songs or novellas in lesser mortals hands. Except for the Republic and Laws.
  37. K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Tyler W- interesting. You are inadvertently and for the wrong reasons correct in your opinion that the authors attempt at equating Plato's Republic with modern neo-conservatism was flawed. Plato's version of govt did have some similarities, but the main (and most important) difference being that in Plato's Republic the end result was the betterment of all, a great society striving together for mutual benefit. The neo-CONS of today (which are actually a hybrid form of socialists/monarchists) represent only 2% of the population, with not much concern extending beyond the point of their noses and their social station within said 2%. They are a lobby group masquerading as a legit party with natl concerns. Much like the BQ in Cdn. Another Freudian slip(?) in your assesment was that US in afghanistan is not there for moral/legal/security reasons but because they have the might to make their actions right. I will give u points for this post because being right for wrong reasons is better than your previous being wrong for wrong reasons!!lol. That beind said I am very happy this book made it, it was one of my favorite reads in school and always advise people read it (or the Coles Notes) if they want to better understand politics, be it domestic or foreign. Is not the allegory of the cave a perfect allegory for US post 9/11?
  38. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: Well I for one appreciated Blackburn's elegance. He captured the sensibilite of "The Republic" -- particularly the sense of hope and humanity that permeates even the attempt to write something like this.

    Manifestos are hard for us to understand, because we think that if we find some one thing in them to vilify that means the entire manifesto is a failure - and, indeed, that the person who wrote it is a failure too. This juvenile all-or-nothing thinking is hanging us out to dry. In Plato's time, his desire to contribute something to humanity superseded his fear of being attacked.

    Writing your own personal manifesto is a superb way to clarify how devilishly difficult it is to live a truthful, beautiful life that admits light and darkness. A little more passion for admitting that the unknown is as important as the known would go a long way -- especially on this website.
  39. Mike Witcher from Montreal, Canada writes: Interesting that the average length of the comments pertaining to Plato's Republic are about 2 -3 times the length of an average comment pertaining to other articles in the globe.
    I guess people who have mastered Philosophy 101 at their local community college do indeed have much to say, much to offer the world....

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top