/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15999999]

What's the best translation of the Republic?

Just looking for an edition of it to carry around.

[Anonymous No.16000000]

What a waste

[Anonymous No.16000002]

>>15999999
Start with the greeks.

[Anonymous No.16000007]

>>16000000

[Anonymous No.16000012]

>>15999999
>>16000000
pretty much fitting for this dumb board

[Anonymous No.16000017]

>>15999999
>>16000000
bad gets, though I agree Plato is retarded

[Anonymous No.16000018]

[Anonymous No.16000027]

>>15999999
>>16000000
Whelp there goes any chance of getting an answer.

Check em.

[Anonymous No.16000033]

>>16000000
You’re a waste

[Anonymous No.16000035]

>>15999999
Benjamin Jowett

Actually read it and the Statesman too. You will realize why democracy and equality are idiotic notions and it is unfair for the intelligent to be rendered as equals to the simple.

[Anonymous No.16000036]

>>16000000
The tragedy of mankind

[Anonymous No.16000037]

I'm reading multiple translations at once rn and I don't find it matters much if you don't have an academic interest. Bloom's is alright, but a bit modern at times. For example: talking about love, Socrates mentions "youth or feminity" in Jowett, but "man or woman" in Bloom. But Jowett uses somewhat archaic English and some sentences genuinely don't make sense, which makes it cost more effort to read than it should. Then I also have Griffith's translation, which is much like Bloom's

[Anonymous No.16000040]

>>15999999
>>16000000
O im laffin

[Anonymous No.16000041]

>>15999999
>>16000000
>>16000018
genuinely the hardest I've laughed in a while

[Anonymous No.16000044]

>>16000035
Anon I said in the Op I've already read it, but thank you for the good words. Any anon who hasn't read him will find value in them.

I understand Jowett is somewhat of the base line of go to translations? Not saying the best, but it seems to me he's a very important figure for Plato translations.

[Anonymous No.16000053]

>>16000044
I think he's hated here because his translations are public domain nowadays so they aren't seen as elite.

[Anonymous No.16000055]

>>16000000
Checked

[Anonymous No.16000059]

>>16000037
How does Grube do?

[Anonymous No.16000062]

>>16000053
Yeah it seems that way, though obviously there are also quite a few anons who like him like yourself. But could you offer any comparison with other translations that might make him better?

[Anonymous No.16000070]

>>15999999
>>16000000
For sale.
Repeating digits.
Never used.

[Anonymous No.16000078]

>>16000070
Lmao

[Anonymous No.16000091]

>>16000070
Sad.

[Anonymous No.16000095]

>>16000062
As >>16000037, the main complaint I have is that his translations don't result in real English sentences and the archaic forms of English used. More modern translations are more comfortable to read, but consequently not always as precise.

>>16000059
No idea anon

[Anonymous No.16000103]

>>16000095
Thank you anon.

>No idea anon
Dang.

[Anonymous No.16000121]

>>16000000
>the irony

[Anonymous No.16000125]

I've found a different translation, Paul Shorey, anyone know how good it is?

[Anonymous No.16000135]

Alright, I've got four names:

>Benjamin Jowett
>Paul Shorey
>George Grube
>Allan Bloom

[Anonymous No.16000144]

The best translaton is Thomas Taylor's Prometheus Trust Edition of the Complete Works of Plato Vol. I
It's perfect intro to philosophy by having Alcibiades I first with excellent commentary by Olympiodorus and Proclus, then Proclus comments on the Republic. Plus Taylor's ingenious understanding of Platonism, one can only call inspired, a torch in the dark of enlightenment and thousand years of flawed Christian ontology.

[Anonymous No.16000162]

>>16000135
Griffith is also another name I've heard but he doesn't seem as big as these.

[Anonymous No.16000184]

Does any Greek e/lit/ist have either of these two books in digital form? I've got digital copies of most of the Western canon after scouring libgen for the better part of a week but haven't been able to find these two anywhere
>Greek Lyric: An Anthology in Translation
>Legal Speeches of Democratic Athens

[Anonymous No.16000189]

>>16000144
>Thomas Taylor
I only know him as the go to translator of the neoplatonists.

>Prometheus Trust
I like them but almost all of the people I have seen who buy from them are narcissistic philistines.

>It's perfect intro to philosophy by having Alcibiades I first with excellent commentary by Olympiodorus and Proclus, then Proclus comments on the Republic.
This just sounds ridiculous and stupid, chiefly because it makes the mistake of assuming neoplatonism is the same as Platonism, or from what I've heard Orphism and Pythagoreanism and the likes, when they obviously remain differentiated things. However historically influential and affected one or another has been(which seems to serve more to underrate Plato and Aristotle if anything). And above all it's more an attempt to religiously convert one to their particular (modern revisionism) belief than help them understand Plato.

[Anonymous No.16000196]

>>16000184
Just try getting more particular works like collections of Pindar himself, or Demosthenes and such.

[Anonymous No.16000208]

>>16000000
>>15999999
holy kek

[Anonymous No.16000225]

>>15999999
>>16000000
keked

[Anonymous No.16000267]

>>16000184
I heard there's a lot of rare books in archive.org book section, books that arent on libgen, you should look there before the whole website gets shut down soon. Speaking of libgen, is there an audiobook version of libgen? I wanna get some audiobooks but theyre all expensive or locked behind expensive subscriptions.

[Anonymous No.16000603]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.16000606]

>>16000000
>>15999999

[Anonymous No.16000642]

>>16000000
nice
very nice
let's see Paul Alan's get

[Anonymous No.16000667]

>>15999999
>>16000000
haha!

funny numbers!

thread no longer bout book!

[Anonymous No.16000825]

>>16000667
Sadly, yes.

[Anonymous No.16000842]

>>15999999
The latest version by C.D.C. Reeve.

[Anonymous No.16000851]

>>16000135
All of those are garbage.

[Anonymous No.16000871]

>haha!
>funny numbers!
>thread no longer bout book!

[Anonymous No.16000891]

>>16000842
>>16000851
Extrapolate.

[Anonymous No.16000892]

>>16000871
but i like it. i was being unironic.

[Anonymous No.16000903]

>>15999999
>>16000000
One of the best double gets in years, possibly ever, on /lit/. Truly a sight to behold.

[Anonymous No.16000913]

>>16000871
Continue.

[Anonymous No.16000942]

>>16000189
>I like them but almost all of the people I have seen who buy from them are narcissistic philistines.
I mean it's the only high quality publications of his works, there are a few paperback editions, but I wouldn't trust them.
>it makes the mistake of assuming neoplatonism is the same as Platonism
when will this bullshit lie end, it was literally invented by some seething 19th century protestants who offered no argument why they should be called "neo"platonists, it is only peddles by pseuds who've never read them nor have they read much of Plato or Aristotle beyond a select few texts.

>It is not particularly difficult to locate the textual basis in Plato’s dialogues for the three fundamental principles of Plotinus’s version of Platonism.5 As we saw in the last chapter, the primary provenance of the Good is Republic, where the superordinate Idea of the Good is found. Its identification with the One is confirmed by Aristotle’s testimony. That identification of Intellect with the Demiurge and Soul as the principle of the soul of the universe and individual souls derives from Timaeus. The identifi cation of nature with the lowest part of the World Soul and matter with the receptacle follows somewhat less directly. Aristotle says that the receptacle is identical with matter as he, Aristotle, understands that. Theophrastus follows Aristotle in testifying that this is what Plato taught as a result of his investigations of nature. Plotinus, too, accepts that it is Plato’s authentic teaching. That nature and matter are the final steps of the procession from the One are claims that must be seen as following from the integrated hierarchical metaphysics that Plotinus embraces. A good place to start to test Plotinus’s systematic version of Platonism is just here, where there is not an obvious proof text for Plotinus to rely on.

[Anonymous No.16001013]

>>16000942
>when will this bullshit lie end, it was literally invented by some seething 19th century protestants who offered no argument why they should be called "neo"platonists, it is only peddles by pseuds who've never read them nor have they read much of Plato or Aristotle beyond a select few texts.
Utterly false, obviously it's still Platonism in its more religious sense, but what I meant was that it is not just merely Plato and Aristotle "updated", they're still different schools of thought, though one may technically say one belongs to the other because of a historical connection. Plotinus is fundamentally doing different things to Plato, and not just in an expansive sense. Your only argument here is about what the definition of school of thought is and how or when it is separate from another, of which we will find very little.

This paragraph you have posted is useless, apart from when it is merely stating basic facts of the beliefs of Plato or Aristotle which are found in neoplatonism, furthermore there is a very obvious distinction in the religious content of Plotinus which in its framing, loses much of Plato's genius, not that that is to say I dislike neoplatonism, it is beautiful, but that it is its own platonism, it is a school that came directly out of Plato, and is an interpretation of him. Neoplatonism well warrants this its own name, contrasting to merely Platonism, though yes one can historically speak of a larger "Platonism" but one leaves the importance of philosophy when they uncaringly believe that.

[Anonymous No.16001276]

>>16000000
What a waste

[Anonymous No.16001330]

>>16000000
What a shame...

[Anonymous No.16001444]

>>16001013
Plato's ethics is complete and obvious, his esotericism, found in republic, phaedrus, symposium, philebus, timaeus, sophist, lysis... are less obvious, thus Plotinus focuses on this.

>It is our task as founders, then, to compel the best natures to reach the study we said before is the most important, namely, to make the ascent and see the good.

[Anonymous No.16001483]

>>16000667
Seethe harder tranny

[Anonymous No.16001487]

>>16001444
>wow anon, I can't believe you know so much about Plato!
Like literally what do you want me to say lmao, you're such a pseud. Oh really? Plato has a well set out ethics? And esotericism in your modern revionistic context could stand for anything.

>>It is our task as founders, then, to compel the best natures to reach the study we said before is the most important, namely, to make the ascent and see the good.
Sure retard, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding that there are different conceptions to the Good. The genius of Plato is found to no where near the same degree in Plotinus, because he is doing something different. The One in Plato's Parmenides is so much vaster in its depth than Plotinus' One, the complexity of Plato just cannot be "extrapolated" or it is effectually a different school of thought.

[Anonymous No.16001494]

>>16001444
>>16001487
I should also provide the example of beauty, almost no one would deny the systematisation of beauty in Plotinus is different from that of Plato's conception of beauty.

[Anonymous No.16001527]

>>16001444
>>>THE NEOPLATONISTS WERE INNOVATORS!!!!

>“Now Zeus, the great commander in heaven, drives his winged chariot first in the procession, looking after everything and putting all things in order. Following him is an army of gods and spirits arranged in eleven 247 sections. Hestia is the only one who remains at the home of the gods; all the rest of the twelve are lined up in formation, each god in command of the unit to which he is assigned. Inside heaven are many wonderful places from which to look and many aisles which the blessed gods take up and back, each seeing to his own work, while anyone who is able and wishes to do so follows along, since jealousy has no place in the gods’ chorus. When they go to feast at the banquet they have a steep climb to the high b tier at the rim of heaven
>Listen then to a dream in return for a dream. In my dream, too, I thought I was listening to people saying that the primary elements, e as it were, of which we and everything else are composed, have no account. Each of them, in itself, can only be named; it is not possible to say anything else of it, either that it is or that it is not. That would mean that we were adding being or not-being to it; whereas we must not attach anything, if we are to speak of that thing itself alone.
>“The place beyond heaven—none of our earthly poets has ever sung or ever will sing its praises enough! Still, this is the way it is—risky as it may be, you see, I must attempt to speak the truth, especially since the truth is my subject. What is in this place is without color and without shape and without solidity, a being that really is what it is, the subject of all true knowledge, visible only to intelligence, the soul’s steersman. Now a god’s d mind is nourished by intelligence and pure knowledge, as is the mind of any soul that is concerned to take in what is appropriate to it, and so it is delighted at last to be seeing what is real and watching what is true, feeding on all this and feeling wonderful, until the circular motion brings it around to where it started. On the way around it has a view of Justice as it is; it has a view of Self-control; it has a view of Knowledge—not the knowledge that is close to change, that becomes different as it knows the different things which we consider real down here. No, it is the knowledge of what really is what it is. And when the soul has seen all the things that are as they are and feasted on them, it sinks back inside heaven and goes home.
>Therefore,you should also say that no only do the objects of knowledge owe their being known to the Good, but their being is also due to it, although the Good is not being, but superior to it in rank and power.
And Glaucon comically said: By Apollo, what a daemonic superiority

[Anonymous No.16001551]

>in a DC bookstore, browsing philosophy

>college girl hovering around me for like 20 minutes before she finally strikes up a convo

>talk about Plato translation (I only ever worked with Grube & Reeve because I am a pleb who doesn't even know greek)

>she says she prefers bloom

>she says modern people who read Plato miss essential, hidden claims in the text

>call out her straussian signaling

>she gets excited and we talk about her straussian education

>invites me to a reading group for the Menexenus

>immediately stops mid sentence, looks at the ground, and fast-walks out of the bookstore before giving any contact info

What happened lads

[Anonymous No.16001599]

>>16001494
because Plotinus had trouble grappling with the ineffable, just as he sometimes say the One-Being is the One in a way, he sometimes calls the One the same with Beauty. He also calls the Dyad the One. Plotinus was incomplete, but never truly wrong. My original post was also PROCLUS and OLYMPIODORUS nor Plotinus, nobody denies Plotinus requires addition and clarification, of which Damascius & Co completed.

Philebus:
SOCRATES: But now we notice that the force of the GOOD has taken refuge in an ALLIANCE with the nature of the BEAUTIFUL. For measure and proportion manifest themselves in all areas as beauty and virtue.
PROTARCHUS: Undeniably.
SOCRATES: But we did say that truth is also included along with them in our mixture?
PROTARCHUS: Indeed.
SOCRATES: Well, then, if we cannot capture the good in one form, we will have to take hold of it in a conjunction of three: BEAUTY, PROPORTION, and TRUTH. Let us affirm that these should by right be treated as a unity and be held responsible for what is in the MIXTURE [The One of the Traid], for its goodness is what makes the mixture itself a good one.

[Anonymous No.16001616]

>>16001551
Imagine you're an autist. Imagine all the 4chan awkward social autism stories, combined. Imagine you are a girl. That's what happened. Girls who are awkward are really awkward.

[Anonymous No.16001627]

>>16001551
weird larp reddit spacer, but hundred bucks says it didnt happen

[Anonymous No.16001632]

>>16001551
Well now you need to visit that bookstore everyday in the hopes of seeing her again.

[Anonymous No.16001640]

>>16001599
>SOCRATES: But now we notice that the force of the GOOD has taken refuge in an ALLIANCE with the nature of the BEAUTIFUL. For measure and proportion manifest themselves in all areas as beauty and virtue.
>PROTARCHUS: Undeniably.
>SOCRATES: But we did say that truth is also included along with them in our mixture?
>PROTARCHUS: Indeed.
>SOCRATES: Well, then, if we cannot capture the good in one form, we will have to take hold of it in a conjunction of three: BEAUTY, PROPORTION, and TRUTH. Let us affirm that these should by right be treated as a unity and be held responsible for what is in the MIXTURE [The One of the Traid], for its goodness is what makes the mixture itself a good one.
Yeah, again, this doesn't prove anything. It's just a laying out of the basic theory of forms. Do you really mean to continue to show how neoplatonism came from plato is that they're the same thing?

[Anonymous No.16001868]

>>16001627
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is what is called a "joke."

[Anonymous No.16001878]

>>16001640
>>16001527
>SOCRATES: Now, my friend, a little while ago, if you remember, we were inclined to accept a certain proposition which we thought put the matter very well—I mean the statement that no account can be given of the primaries of which other things are constituted, because each of them is in itself incomposite; and that it would be incorrect to apply even the term ‘being’ to it when we spoke of it or the term ‘this’, because these terms signify different and alien things; and that is the reason why a primary is an unaccountable and unknowable thing. Do you remember?
do you?
Here ares me pasages to ponder, hope your educated self knows how to read this:
Philebus: 13e-15b; 16c-17c; 20d; 26b-c; 27b-c; 30a-c.
Symposium: 203e-204c; 210a-212c
Phaedrus: 265c-266c
Statesman: 269c7-270b
I have hundreds of notes like these all over Plato's work.

[Anonymous No.16001953]

>>16001878
>>16001640
Timaeus 51
>This, of course, is the reason why we shouldn’t call the mother or receptacle of what has come to be, of what is visible or perceivable in every other way, either earth or air, fire or water, or any of their compounds or their constituents. But if we speak of it as an invisible and characterless sort of thing, one that receives all things and shares inb a most perplexing way in what is intelligible, a thing extremely difficult to comprehend, we shall not be misled.
Republic 513
>This, then, is the kind of thing that, on the one hand, I said is intelligible, and, on the other, is such that the soul is forced to use hypotheses in the investigation of it, not travelling up to a first principle, since it cannot reach beyond its hypotheses, but using as images those very things of which images were made in the section below, and which, by comparison to their images, were thought to be clear and to be valued as such. I understand that you mean what happens in geometry and related sciences. Then also understand that, by the other subsection of the intelligible, I mean that which reason itself grasps by the power of dialectic. It does not consider these hypotheses as first principles but truly as hypotheses—but as stepping stones to take off from, enabling it to reach the unhypothetical first principle of everything. Having grasped this principle, it reverses itself and, keeping hold of what follows from it, comes down to a conclusion without making use of anything visible at all, but only of forms themselves, moving on from forms to forms, and ending in forms.
As if Plotinus himself wrote this.

[Anonymous No.16002040]

>>16001878
>do you?
>Here ares me pasages to ponder, hope your educated self knows how to read this:
Get your fucken hand out of my face retard, I've read the complete works of Plato. These quotations prove literally nothing, how dumb are you? I've shown this repeatedly and you merely reply with posting more, how exactly does these show that Plotinus is in your opinion just "an updated version of Plato with people like Aristotle and following a super duper specific chain of traditionalist truth i.e. plato is just orphism and pythagoreanism which the greeks maybe STOLE from the egyptians and east :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD".

Your beliefs aren't even neoplatonism itself, and it's a reductive conception of truth.

>>16001953
Yes retard I've read the Timaeus and Republic, do you think I don't know what Plato's philosophy is? Do you think that apparent group of "dumb academics which decided to call it neoplatonism" hadn't read Plato?????? And I'm not even saying that story is true, at least in such a way as you mean it, like Plotinus had always been read with Plato and Aristotle and as if everyone always universally recognised "oh yes Plotinus is just Plato put into a greater systematisation :DDDDDD" when obviously he is not, and no one has believed that UNTIL the 20th and 19th fucking century's.

[Anonymous No.16002081]

>>16001878
Also
>I have hundreds of notes like these all over Plato's work.
Again, as I said, almost everyone I have seen who buys from the prometheus trust are narcissistic philistines such as yourself. Self-obsessed, and you think you're some special mystical individual philosopher-king for taken onto your beliefs the images of their mythico-religious worldview, but is as in so many cases an empty and pointless abstraction of your own first misunderstanding, and lack of education ever past that.

No amount of reading will fix that bookworm, you need but life experience. The Falstaffic energies.

[who is thomas taylor No.16002088]

>>16002040
>and no one has believed that UNTIL the 20th and 19th fucking century
The pejorative neologism ‘Neoplatonism,’ which has its origin in eighteenth-century German academic histories of ancient philosophy, cuts two ways.61 In supposing that the ‘Neoplatonism’ of Plotinus or of anyone after him is different from Plato’s philosophy, one necessarily supposes the obverse. That is, Plato’s philosophy must be viewed as containing none of the elements of Neoplatonism. This can mean one of two things. First, it can mean that specifi c doctrines found in Plotinus are absent from Plato’s philosophy. Just to take perhaps the most contentious example, it might be supposed that the positing of a fi rst principle of all above ‘being’ is Neoplatonic and emphatically not Platonic. Accordingly, the Idea of the Good in Republic has to be interpreted in such a way that it does not fi t this description. In addition, Aristotle’s testimony that Plato identifi ed the Good with a fi rst principle of all named ‘One’ has to be discounted. The justifi cation for so doing is no doubt that the superordination of the Good and its identifi cation with the One constitute deviations from Plato’s true philosophy. But then, of course, only one who has independent access to what this is can be in a position to make this claim. As we will see in the next chapter, the only apparent vehicle for independent access is the dialogues. But to employ some dialogues to interpret others already implies a criterion of relevance, say, developmental ordering or theoretical cogency. But this brings us once again into question-begging territory.
>61. See Büsching 1772, 2:471ff., who uses the term to describe what is in comparison with the philosophy of Plato “eine unklare mystische Schwärmerei.” Although the term ‘Neuplatonismus’ belongs to the latter part of the eighteenth century, the wholly negative judgments on the fi delity of Neoplatonists to Plato is at least a generation earlier. See Brucker 1742, cited in Tigerstedt 1974, 58, 100–101, nn. 437 and 452. Tigerstedt quotes Brucker as claiming that “they are all—from Plotinus to Proclus and Olympiodorus—madmen, liars, imposters, vain and foolish forgers of a most detestable and false philosophy.” Instead of ‘Neoplatonists,’ he calls them ‘pseudo-Platonists’ and proponents of ‘syncretism.’ Dörrie (1976, 45) follows this tradition closely, especially in his insouciance regarding Aristotle’s testimony. He concludes his examination of Platonism after Plato by saying, “Den eigentlichen Aufbruch in eine Ontologie, die alle Anschaulichkeit abstreifte, vollzog erst Plotin.” See Szlezák 2010a for an illuminating sketch of the course of Platonic hermeneutics from Brucker to Schleiermacher.

[Anonymous No.16002098]

>>16002088
Get a life loser, I'm gonna take my time and respond in an hour when I've rightly enjoyed myself and shall return to my leisure. Wait on me.

[Anonymous No.16002102]

>>16002098

[Anonymous No.16002446]

>>15999999
>>16000000
Jesus Christ, God is real.

[Anonymous No.16002755]

>>15999999
You’re holding it, kid.

[Anonymous No.16002842]

>>15999999
>>16000000
Oh gawd

[Anonymous No.16002849]

>>15999999
>>16000000
>tfw I missed it
>twice
This was gonna be my chance to get gf lads

[Anonymous No.16003104]

>>16002849
You'll get >>16666666 don't worry, unless i get and i get a gf but good luck to you

[Anonymous No.16004619]

>>15999999
>>16000000
BASED

[Anonymous No.16004754]

>>16001527
Nigga did you quote the palinode from the Phaedrus like it wasn't rhetorical

[Anonymous No.16004839]

>>16000059
I read the Bloom translation and ran into someone who had read the Grube translation and they were so vastly different in some sections it was almost ridiculous. The main issue we were running into is that Bloom translates Plato's discussion in civil dialogue as all people being owned "by the society", and belonging to each other. Grube translates it as all the women and children being owned by all the men. It's such a significant difference I practically think of them as different books.

I like Bloom's because I think he preserves the dialogue format very well, that's my main opinion on it.
As a note: Grube's translation is the one used in The Complete Works of Plato, so you'll have to find a separate source for the Republic if you want to read a different translation.

[Anonymous No.16005386]

>>16004754
what does this even mean

[Anonymous No.16005605]

>>16004754
Myth and poetry is the product of inspired madness, whenever one is struck by insight it is hard to resist writing it down as poetry or myth. That's one of the points of Phaedrus, read Ion.
Plato's myth always occur late into every dialogue precisely because the preceding discussion is necessary for correct interpretation. Dialectics antecede, to warm up the reader until the sage bursts into mythopoetics. His myths like his piety point to something real.

SOCRATES: Shouldn’t we offer a prayer to the gods here before we leave?
PHAEDRUS: Of course.
>SOCRATES: O dear Pan and all the other gods of this place, grant that I may be beautiful inside. Let all my external possessions be in friendly harmony with what is within. May I consider the wise man rich. As for gold, let me have as much as a moderate man could bear and carry with him. Do we need anything else, Phaedrus? I believe my prayer is enough for me.
PHAEDRUS: Make it a prayer for me as well. Friends have everything in common.

>Well now, how can one argue for the existence of gods without getting angry? You see, one inevitably gets irritable and annoyed with these people who have put us to the trouble, and continue to put us to the trouble, of composing these explanations. If only they believed the stories which they had as babes and sucklings from their nurses and mothers! These almost literally ‘charming’ stories were told partly for amusement, partly in FULL EARNEST; the children heard them related in prayer at sacrifices, and saw acted representations of them—apart of the ceremony a child always loves to see and hear; and they saw their own parents praying with the utmost seriousness for themselves and their families in the firm conviction that their prayers and supplications were addressed to gods who really did exist. At the rising and setting of the sun and moon the children saw and heard Greeks and foreigners, in happiness and misery alike, all prostrate at their devotions; far from supposing gods to be a myth, the worshippers believed their existence to be so sure as to be beyond suspicion. When some people contemptuously brush aside all this evidence without a single good reason to support them (as even a half-wit can see) and oblige us to deliver this address—well, how could one possibly admonish them and at the same time teach them the basic fact about gods, their existence, without using the rough edge of one’s tongue?

[Anonymous No.16005652]

>>16004839
>I like Bloom's because I think he preserves the dialogue format very well
Reeve is best for dialogue format, as well as for the translation in general.

[Anonymous No.16005663]

>>15999999
>>16000000
The duality of /lit/

[Anonymous No.16005684]

>>15999999
>>16000000

[Anonymous No.16005800]

>>16005652
I still want to be contrarian and read Waterfield's version of the Republic. Would you happen to know any major differences between this version and Bloom's or Reeve's?

[Anonymous No.16005826]

>>16005386
It's a rhetorical speech for the character Phaedrus, in a dialogue that starts by reading the speech of a rhetorician and ends looking at rhetoric and writing. Shit's like selective Bible quoting, there's a context goddamnit.

>>16005386
>Plato's myth always occur late into every dialogue precisely because the preceding discussion is necessary for correct interpretation. Dialectics antecede, to warm up the reader until the sage bursts into mythopoetics. His myths like his piety point to something real.
The palinode ends the first, what, half? 2/3s of the dialogue, dawg, shit turns into a technical discussion afterwards. Hell, the key to the three speeches comes afterwards, not before, with the logographic necessity shit.

[Anonymous No.16005830]

>>16005800
If you're gonna get book that focuses on a single dialogue which always naturally have some idea to peddle, then you're forced to find a newer edition of that dialogue doing the same thing (because if this new guy thought the old edition was good enough he wouldn't make the new one), to get opposing arguments.

[Anonymous No.16005875]

>>16005826
My quote is literally in the last third of the dialogue, perhaps you don't notice but there's also a third myth about Thoth.
There's dialectics within myth. The point of a myth is to put into image what cannot be put into words. The Phaedrus myth is "the same" myth which we find in the Republic. It also has parallels to Phaedo and Gorgias accounts of the afterlife.

[Anonymous No.16005891]

>>16005875
>“So now, dear Love, this is the best and most beautiful palinode we
could offer as payment for our debt, especially in view of the rather poetical
choice of words Phaedrus made me use. Forgive us our earlier speeches
in return for this one;

The riding up olympus is also paralleled to the Ladder of Love in Symposium

[Anonymous No.16005925]

>>16005875
The Story of Er has reincarnation but I remember in Gorgias the myth has a final judgment idea in it.

[Anonymous No.16006021]

>>16005925
Phaedrus and Republic teaches us that a "Soul-life" is a cycle of up to ten thousand years, Protagoras teaches that punishment is meant to teach and redeem/heal the soul, so Gorgias "eternal" punishment was argued by Olympiodorus to be refering to a whole soul cycle (as shown in Myth of Er where a tyrant is denied heaven and reincarnation), thus one should view this 'eternal' punishment to be at most "a universal year" since the whole of the cosmos is reset after thar as the Timaeus explains, ushering in a new golden age. It's also reasonable that it is eternal because the healing performed on the soul forever mends the civil war of the soul which produced such vile vices, and restores the Soul's order. It can also be conjectured that because this tyrant keeps trying to escape his unwillingness causes him to undo whatever healing the spirits try to do for him.
Phaedo also says that it is the damaged party' who must forgive the damned soul in order for it to be released. This can be linked to remorse and forgiveness, that without forgiveness a soul will be tortured by guilt forever, because in death all our sins are revealed.

And all of this is from his dialogues, sounds Christian, but it is the other way around.

[Anonymous No.16006063]

>>16006021
There's also a myth in Statesman more detailed about the cosmic cycle but I haven't read that in a year

[Anonymous No.16006354]

Has anyone other than Jowett translated more than just The Republic?

[Anonymous No.16006367]

>>16006354
Jowett translated everything except the Letters as far as I'm aware.

[Anonymous No.16006425]

>>16006354
Benardete has translated a few dialogues.

[Anonymous No.16006428]

>>16006367
It seems like he and Grube are the only options if you want translation consistency across multiple dialogues.

[Anonymous No.16006722]

>>16006021
Why does Thrasymachus blush in the Republic?

[Anonymous No.16006733]

>>16006722
It means the wild part of his soul had been tamed. In the beginning, he is very antagonistic towards Socrates, calling him a child and such but then Socrates calms him down.

[Anonymous No.16006778]

>>16006733
What does Socrates say about him blushing?

[Anonymous No.16006790]

>>16006778
Most scholars agree that Socrates’ arguments in the course of his refutation of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic are at best weak and at worse fallacious. Some interpreters have used this logical inadequacy to argue that Socrates’ aim is psychotherapeutic rather than cognitive, but this does not address why Thrasymachus feels shamed. I argue in this article that Thrasymachus blushes not simply because his explicit propositions are contradictory but because two principles of his sophistic ēthos – that his skill requires knowledge and that his skill achieves victory in logoi – are fundamentally at odds. My claim that Socrates’ elenchus of Thrasymachus appeals to a principle of ethical consistency has the specific advantage of reconciling the otherwise opposed views of Socratic elenchus as exclusively ‘logical’ or ‘psychotherapeutic’.

https://brill.com/view/journals/agpt/32/2/article-p321_3.xml?language=en

[Anonymous No.16006796]

>>16000000

[Anonymous No.16006878]

>>16006790
Socrates says "Now Thrasymachus did agree to all these things, though not as easily as I'm telling it now, but being dragged along and grudging it, after sweating a prodigious amount, seeing as how it was also summer. And then I saw something I had never seen before: Thrasymachus blushing."

Thrasymachus's blushing is ambiguous, and reads to most people as moral or intellectual shame, but Socrates makes no such attribution. He's sweating, not because of embarrassment or shame, but because it's summer, and the blush goes along with that: he's totally amoral. If Socrates wins the argument, Socrates wins but he loses, and Thrasymachus loses but wins, since whoever wins is the stronger, affirming Thrasymachus. In the Phaedrus, he's said to have had the talent to play on the emotions of the city. His whole anger is feigned.

[Anonymous No.16007452]

>tfw just bought a guide for reading and understanding The Republic instead of the actual book
is the book that hard to understand that I need a guide to read alongside with?

[Anonymous No.16007726]

>>16000000
>>15999999
Unfortunate