/lit/ - Literature

>goes on an endless offtopic rant about political theory, ontology, epistemology, ethics, pedagogy and aesthetics
>still fails to refute Thrasymachos' initial claims about justice

I read this book recently and I really can't see why it's so praised. Its' just Plato going on and on about his ideal government. Yet, in the 2500 years since he wrote this no country has ever tried anything close to his ideal. So what's the point of this book?

Alright, I just finished it; where do I go from here?

Why do Christians love it so much?

Anyway, so has this ever been debunked?

Which version/edition/translation is recommended or best for this book?

Another classic argument for national socialism. This knowledge has been hidden from the world by the contortion of the word "republic" to something barely removed from a democracy. Read this book for the truth

Who is your favorite "childish innocence" philosopher? Plato is my favorite childish innocence philosopher because getting rid of democracy and installing a Philosopher King and exterminating the disabled are all my favorite forms of childish innocence.

Adamantius is by far the most based guy in The Republic

>tl;dr there's no hope for math brainlets
You're good at math, aren't you anon?

Just finished pic related. Why did Socrates go full autismo claiming that our souls are immortal? Was the immortal soul a common belief in Greco-Roman civilization?

Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.

Seriously.

And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.

Every single one of his works goes like this:

SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here— this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"

The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.

Having had the opportunity to read through this, I'm actually surprised that no one in a position of power has made an attempt to try some (or all) of the ideas for the ideal state outlined in The Republic.

Is there some reason for that?

Also, Plato is held up and respected as a founder of modern philosophy and reason, but at the end he goes on this wild tangent about a story some guy told him about the afterlife as if it was real. Was there some allegory I was missing there or was he trying to put that forward as being the true state of affairs?