The republic

[Anonymous No.17520108]

Just finished book 1, its a bit confusing but i see the points being made. Still, i feel like the points that are being made are a tad bit too generalising, so im not entirely convinced. What are your thoughts on this thing /lit/? Am i missing something so far?

[Anonymous No.17520123]

>>17520108
If you are expecting a masterpiece this isn't it. It's a good read if you want to learn about the historical context of philosophy, but most points in the book will be very generalized and drawn out. Book 1 and 2 are the most frustrating ones since Plato is just dodging the justice-argument and not responding though, so yeah you could say it gets more interesting later on.

[Anonymous No.17520125]

nigger read the whole thing then come back. he builds upon his ideas

[Anonymous No.17520137]

>>17520123
Great! I am enjoying it despite its shortcomings so far, so glad it gets even better
>>17520125
I knoe i just wanted to take a moment to reflect a bit first before i continue.

[Anonymous No.17520961]

>>17520108
Book one is just an introduction, there’s a lot more interesting stuff later especially in books 3-7. Just stick with it, it’s well worth it in the end.

[Anonymous No.17520988]

>>17520123
Pseud detected

>>17520108
Here's some advice; you are supposed to be reading it while keeping in mind that the city is an analogy for the individual human being.

[Anonymous No.17520995]

I read book one and concluded the author and all of his acquaintances seem to be midwits. I promptly dropped it.

A just act is doing what one believes to be just.

An exception can be found to any other attempt to define justice.

[Anonymous No.17521192]

>>17520995
I've read some retarded posts today, but you take the cake.

[Anonymous No.17521205]

>>17520108
Far from his best work, and despite its fame, his least relevant work today. Read Symposium and Phaedo

[Anonymous No.17521218]

The problem with The Republic, is justice is already defined before they arrive on the definition, they have a sense, an undefinable sense of what it is, then reduce it to a phrase. The entire argument is a manipulation of language predicated on Socrates deceiving his companions into responding a certain way to his questions and getting them in his control, the true sophist. It's a futile, narccisistic endeavor that Plato disowned by writing Laws.

[Anonymous No.17521409]

>>17521218
Kek, a theme throughout is how Thrasymachus isn't necessarily wrong, Socrates is right about Justice only if Thrasymachus is, and that problem intentionally persists for the rest of the dialogue

[Anonymous No.17521440]

>>17521409
I don't think I read beyond book 7 desu, a mistake on my part. IDK if I should jump back in or restart, I've read books 1-3 like 4 times. I've read that you should not take the dialogue at face value and note the contradictions, but it's hard to read it as a play and not take the exact ideas literally imo.

[Anonymous No.17521755]

I’m reading it right now and have mixed feeling about it. My reasonable and enlightened mind categorically rejects the excessive censorship that Plato wants to implement in his state, but other parts are at least interesting concepts, for example his description of the decline from Aristocracy to Tyranny. All in all an enjoyable read

[Anonymous No.17521775]

I just finished it yesterday. It was okay. He was right about some stuff, and that all feels like common sense. He was laughably off about some stuff, but who isn't? I was advised to read him if I want to understand modern philosophy though, and I'm not sure at this point how that's going to get me there. Guess we'll see once I tackle Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.17521795]

>>17520995
How does one decide what a just action is?

[Anonymous No.17521805]

>>17521775
Republic is for political theory. I'd suggest reading Phaedrus, Laches, Charmides, and the trial/death of Socrates.

[Anonymous No.17521817]

>>17521795
Whatever you think is just is just.

[Anonymous No.17521862]

>>17521805
I was following a guide on the /lit/ wiki actually
>https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/4chanlit/images/f/fa/Philosophy_Project_1.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20181125223922

Before Republic I read Apology, Trial, Euthyphro, Symposium, Crito, Phaedo. I was going to read Laws, but decided to skip it once I realized it was longer than Republic. I'm more into the political theory side of it, and that's why I'm really delving into it. Thinking I'm going to instead vaguely follow this list (secondaries as needed) and take it from there:
>https://politicalscience.yale.edu/sites/default/files/political_theory-reading_list-2015.pdf

[Anonymous No.17521869]

>>17521862
Also, I'm aware that all the stuff he was right about feels like common sense because we took a lot of those from him

[Anonymous No.17521883]

>>17521817
What qualities about justice allow us to communicate about it even though our conceptions of justice might be completely different?

[Anonymous No.17521904]

>>17521883
The fact that we largely agree about what we know to be just. Every argument of justice can be traced back to an axiomatic knowledge of what is right.

[Anonymous No.17521930]

>>17520108
Book 1 is actually one of the stronger sections. Book 2 is one of the worst, same with book 3. The best parts in this are where Socrates is discussing morals and abstract topics like the Forms and his theory of the three sided nature of man. The political stuff is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17521965]

>>17521904
On what axioms should we build our conception of “right” on? What should we all agree on?