Republic (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

Republic (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

3.7 87
by Plato
     
 

View All Available Formats & Editions

Republic, by Plato, is part of the Barnes & Noble Classics series, which offers quality editions at affordable prices to the student and the general reader, including new scholarship, thoughtful design, and pages of carefully crafted extras. Here are some of the remarkable features of Barnes & Noble Classics:

  • New
…  See more details below

Overview

Republic, by Plato, is part of the Barnes & Noble Classics series, which offers quality editions at affordable prices to the student and the general reader, including new scholarship, thoughtful design, and pages of carefully crafted extras. Here are some of the remarkable features of Barnes & Noble Classics:

  • New introductions commissioned from today's top writers and scholars
  • Biographies of the authors
  • Chronologies of contemporary historical, biographical, and cultural events
  • Footnotes and endnotes
  • Selective discussions of imitations, parodies, poems, books, plays, paintings, operas, statuary, and films inspired by the work
  • Comments by other famous authors
  • Study questions to challenge the reader's viewpoints and expectations
  • Bibliographies for further reading
  • Indices & Glossaries, when appropriate
All editions are beautifully designed and are printed to superior specifications; some include illustrations of historical interest. Barnes & Noble Classics pulls together a constellation of influences—biographical, historical, and literary—to enrich each reader's understanding of these enduring works.

One of the greatest works of philosophy, political theory, and literature ever produced, Plato’s Republic has shaped Western thought for thousands of years, and remains as relevant today as when it was written during the fourth century B.C.

Republic begins by posing a central question: "What is justice, and why should we be just, especially when the wicked often seem happier and more successful?" For Plato, the answer lies with the ways people, groups, and institutions organize and behave. A brilliant inquiry into the problems of constructing the perfect state, and the roles education, the arts, family, and religion should play in our lives, Republic employs picturesque settings, sharply outlined characters, and conversational dialogue to drive home the philosopher’s often provocative arguments.

It has been said that the entire history of Western philosophy consists of nothing more than "a series of footnotes to Plato." Vastly entertaining, occasionally shocking, and always stimulating, Republic continues to enrich and expand the outlook of all who read it.

Elizabeth Watson Scharffenberger holds degrees from the University of Chicago and Columbia University. A specialist in the culture and literature of Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., she teaches at Columbia University and New York University’s Gallatin School.

Read More

Product Details

ISBN-13:
9781593080976
Publisher:
Barnes & Noble
Publication date:
07/01/2004
Series:
Barnes & Noble Classics Series
Pages:
496
Sales rank:
54,383
Product dimensions:
5.25(w) x 8.00(h) x 1.24(d)

Read an Excerpt

From Elizabeth Watson Scharffenberger’s Introduction to Republic

The conversation in Republic begins simply enough. Socrates, who has plainly been on familiar terms with Polemarchus’ family for a long time, forthrightly asks Cephalus about old age. His response, that aging is not as difficult as it is often reported to be, prompts Socrates to wonder out loud whether Cephalus’ easygoing attitude is in part facilitated by his wealth. The old man’s response is affirmative. The wealthy, he asserts, face death without fear; their resources enable them to satisfy their debts to gods and men and also to avoid lying and cheating, and thus they can die with the confidence that they will not be punished in the afterlife. These remarks are what precipitate the discussion of just behavior and moral conduct, which Socrates introduces as he asks his elderly friend whether “justice” (dikaiosynê) simply consists of paying debts and telling the truth. Cephalus politely bows out of the conversation, leaving his son Polemarchus to argue that justice—meaning “right behavior” in general—does indeed consist of paying debts and giving “what is due,” as poets such as Simonides claim. Socrates, however, quickly leads Polemarchus to realize that there are serious logical problems with this traditional conception of justice, in which “what is due” is defined in terms of “help” to “friends” and “harm” to “enemies,” and the young man is left perplexed.

At this point, Thrasymachus leaps into the discussion, asserting that justice is simply “the advantage of the stronger,” by which he clearly means that “justice” is relative—that is, “right behavior” is whatever those in power determine it to be. With a series of questions that recall those he just posed to Polemarchus, Socrates uncovers logical problems in Thrasymachus’ definition as well. Thrasymachus, however, does not give up. Exploding in frustration at Socrates’ naive assumptions about the responsibilities that the powerful bear to those who are under their control, he reformulates his ideas with a bold new emphasis evocative of Antiphon’s thinking in “On Truth.” “Justice”—that is, the circumspect avoidance of doing “wrong” to others and obedience to social rules—is doing what is advantageous to another, who is stronger and more powerful than oneself. “Injustice,” on the other hand, is doing what is to one’s own advantage by taking what one wants regardless of social rules and by aggrandizing oneself at the expense of others. It is what leads to “happiness,” provided that one is not penalized for one’s exploitations. Tyrants who kill and confiscate and rape at will, according to Thrasymachus, are the happiest men of all.

Although Socrates is able to poke holes through the logic of this new formulation with questions that hark back once again to those he has already posed, Thrasymachus’ sulky concessions leave him unconvinced that he has made an effective case for the connection between justice, which through all has not been adequately defined, and “happiness.” Nor are Glaucon and Adeimantus convinced, and it is their persistence at the beginning of book 2 that launches the more systematic and extensive inquiry into the nature of justice and its relationship to happiness that occupies the rest of Republic. In particular, the brothers ask Socrates to explain how justice is in itself the source of happiness, regardless of whether it is recognized and rewarded, and how the just man can be happy, regardless of his material circumstances.

The challenges of defining justice and understanding its effects on long-term happiness, fulfillment, and well-being—all of which are conveyed by the Greek word eudaimonia—lead to the discussion of the ideal city-state, which is posited as a large-scale vehicle for apprehending the operations of justice in the individual. Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus spend a good deal of time and energy discussing how the ideal state will be organized, and how its classes of warriors and leaders will be selected, educated, and provided for; they are especially concerned in books 2 and 3 with the training and acculturation of guardian children, whose exposure to poetry (Iliad and Odyssey in particular) is to be severely curtailed lest they learn harmful values and patterns of behavior.

Yet the three never lose sight of the goals of their examination. By the end of book 4, they arrive at a working (and, in several regards, striking) definition of justice as the condition, or state of being, in which each person in the community—and each element of the individual human soul (psyche)—minds his/her/its own business and does his/her/its own “work.” Since it has been determined that there is in the human soul, as in human society, a natural ruling element, justice is thus equated with the unencumbered rule of these elements: the “gold” class of guardians in the ideal state, which holds sway over the silver and bronze/iron classes, and, in the individual, the rational part of the soul that ought to be master of both “spirit” and appetites.

Read More

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >

Republic Barnes & Noble Classics Series) 3.8 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 88 reviews.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I got this book originally and immediately had problems discerning what the author was trying to tell us. My philosophy professor also told me about problems many people who study Plato's Republic have with this particular translator. I changed it to another translation and found the book so much easier to read and understand. I would never recommend this particular translation
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This book has had the worst grammar from the beginning. Capitalization off and so is puctuation. Get a different copy. Don't ruin a good story over bad grammar.
goNIKE24 More than 1 year ago
Excellently captivating and enlightening dialogue.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Plato was a student of sacrates who wrote down the conversations Socrates took part in, he in no way contributes to the conversation himself. Platos Republic is a group of intellects discussing the best form of government however their is one man in the group, Socrates, who has little to add himself but points out every flaw of everyone elses opnion in a systematic form of interrigation known as the Socratic method, the conversation ends when socrates can no longer find any holes in the intellectualls compilation of the perfect government. There are the dialouges of Socrates but they are short and ussually go nowhere, this is the most extensive disective proffessional account of Socrates using his method at its best. The Socratic method, only the best lawyers master it, but what is it The Socratic method...we all do it, its in short, when someone makes a statement then you ask them two very simple easy to answer questions which everyone there knows the answer to which show that his statement, and those answers to the questions cannot be right at the same time. The begining of the conversation gos, who are the happiest, the just or the unjust. and who should rule the government When most say just and one says unjust Socrates gos why the unjust. The unjust lookout for themselves and you will see the leaders of the state are better off than the just socrates And what is just another member: Paying your debts socrates:: what if a man lent you his weapon and he gos mad, should you give it back member. no that would not be just socrates: but it wuld be unjust to never give it back and steel. member who believes the unjust rule: yes and the unjust feed off of those who the rule over socrates: but how can the unjust rule if the steel from eachother because they are unjust, they would be fighting amongst eachother with no cooperation or leadership member who believes the unjust should rule-The unjust cooperate amongst eachother and rule the multitudes socrates:therefore those who are ruling are just to eachother, and therefore not completly unjust socrates: if the multitudes are not as unjust, and those who are just cooperate would not they bond together and overthrow these few leaders leeching off of them. member who believes the unjust should rule: then how do you explain the statemen bing better off than the people? socrates: Im saying the people must be given something to their satisfaction in return for allowing the rulers to rule. the rulers may have more but they must give enough back to the people so they are satisfied, and not driven to overthrow their laders, in return the leaders get more, but not at too much of the expense of the people. As you can see Socrates sees that the answers to some questions are circumstantial and those who give simple, yes or no, or just or unjust answers must be asked questions as to how their answer can be correct if an attribute of the unjust, incoopertive, would leave them unable to rule in the first place. The Socratic method gos deeper and deeper.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This specific translation is old and very unpopular among philosophers, it is free on project gutenburg, though I'd still say don't waste your time!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago