Book Review: Republic

Upon reading this book, not even 100 pages in, I understood why Socrates was sentenced to death after a trial lasting only a day. The man just didn’t know when to quit or even shut the heck up. It is known that Socrates was always interested in knowledge, and it was within the pursuit of knowledge that his curiosity lay. That did not help him at all. Clearly. If your trial only lasts a day, then the collective really has it out for you.

Let’s think about ‘Republic’ within its context before we dive into its more interesting parts, even if they’re all wrong. ‘Republic’ is by Plato about Socrates; there is not much in the way of Plato’s philosophy in there, and when we do, it’s about 200 pages in with Socrates explaining the Theory of Forms. This book was written around the 5th century BC, so roughly 2400 years ago. Alongside Socrates and Aristotle, Plato’s works are considered the cornerstones of Western philosophy, with ‘Republic’ being one of his most famous. What is fascinating about this book is the way that philosophers in Ancient times tried to understand the world around them. Socrates did it by irritating the good people of Greece with many an open-ended question and endless inquiry into truth and justice. (Beware, reader, this book is mostly about what is considered a ‘just society’. I never thought I’d have to read around 250 pages of what is considered ‘justice’, but, for you, dear reader, I did) Plato decided to try to understand the world around him on an almost liminal level, and his theory of forms proves that. Aristotle just looked at the world around him and decided that his teachers were talking a load of crap. I’m inclined to agree here.

But let’s get into the nitty-gritty of this book. There are issues with this book, and not just with the thoughts and ideas that are discussed, which we will get to. Socrates never wrote anything down, so we have to rely on the narratives of those around him to get into his ideas and philosophy, but is what we are reading accurate and reliable? Is Plato a reliable source of information? We do know that Plato revered Socrates and was devastated at the Senate’s choice to sentence him to death. There is a light of reverence for Socrates scattered throughout the book. Can we trust it? It is known as the Socratic Problem. Trying to get an idea of who Socrates was from various sources, all of which contradict each other, is a headache I didn’t know I was going to get.

Let’s get back to the ideas of this book. I disagree with a lot of them, and some of them are just plain wrong. Aside from the long narratives about a ‘just society’, there are thoughts on the roles of its citizens. Gird your loins, people, their ideas are sickening. And not in a cool Y2K way. It’s gross. There is a whole spiel about selective breeding, only selecting the best guards to breed with women who have no defects and are considered the best and most desirable. The children would be taken away from their mothers at birth and then looked after by the collective of guards and women. Do we care if there is inbreeding and the possibility of fathers breeding with their daughters, nieces, etc., nope. Not a problem, apparently, it is all in the goodwill of building a strong society, and I very nearly DNF’d the book at this point. I zoned out for the rest of this book. I was done by this point; nothing could redeem this book after that. I felt gross and still feel gross.

So one last question: should Plato really have been surprised that Socrates pissed off a lot of people and was killed for it?