 Plato's Republic Introduction What persists throughout the perpetual flow of events in the world? Plato's Republic explores that question, and a host of others, perhaps answering it best by what it shows in its own endurance over a period of nearly twenty-four hundred years. But what actually remains of Plato's own work? How authentic is the Greek text? How accurate is any translation of the Greek text? Can we ever step twice into the same river? When we consider the wide variety of interpretations of the Republic that have emerged over the millennia, the challenge of finding the real Plato becomes even greater. Plotinus, in the third century of the Christian era, drew upon Plato's writings to develop his version of Neoplatonism. A century later, Augustine formulated his version of Christian Platonism, drawing on certain books of the Platonists. At the beginning of the modern epoch, Descartes developed a form of essentialism that recollects some important features of Christian Platonism. This ontological dualism between two substances, mind and matter, was as influential on subsequent thinking about the nature of reality as Augustine's separation between the city of man and the city of God was on politics and theology. In the twentieth century, Karl Popper considered the Republic to be probably the most elaborate monograph on justice ever written, but he interpreted it as a form of totalitarian justice. Library shelves throughout the world are laden with interpretations and commentaries on the Republic, some praising it as a sacred text, and others, like Poppers, linking it to the social programs of Hitler and Stalin. Because they frequently contradict each other, these various interpretations and applications of Plato's thought cannot all be correct, and it is probable that they are flawed in important ways. Neither this introduction nor this translation pretends to resolve the persistent disputes that pervade Platonic scholarship. This was right about our inability literally to step into the same river twice, but I think it is possible for us to swim in the same stream of thinking, one that extends at least as far as Parmenides' time, and probably even earlier. Rather than searching for an account of what Plato said, it is much more important to gain access to the same dialectical process in which we can participate in the 21st century. The enduring aspect of Plato's work is the way of thinking manifested in his dialogues. Following Heraclitus and Parmenides, Plato used poetic language to pursue the love of wisdom. The love of wisdom is different from the possession of it. Plato's kind of thinking was fundamentally and formatively philosophical. But that means he was a seeker after wisdom, not one who pretended to have it or one who sought to propagate it. Pythagoras called himself a lover of wisdom rather than a wise person, a Sophos, a distinction developed in Plato's symposium. The Republic poses questions that endure. What is justice? What form of community fosters the best possible life for human beings? What is the nature and destiny of the soul? What form of education provides the best leaders for a good republic? What are the various forms of poetry and the other arts, and which one should be fostered and which one should be discouraged? How does knowing differ from believing? Several characters in the dialogue present a variety of tempting answers to those questions. Kefalus, Polymarcus, Thracymachus, and Glaucon all offer definitions of justice. Socrates, Glaucon, and Atamanthus explore five different forms of republic. Level complete. Ready to continue?