Just bought this for $3. Did I fuck up? Will I regret it for the rest of my life?
You need to read Thucydides' Peloponnesian War first, prior to reading anything related to Plato. Because it will turn into>How can I make this fit my modern paradigmWhich will result in you not understanding anything that is said, and turn into Presentism Larping.
>>25024039>> Plato's masterpiece. Book VI is especially notable, because it contains the allegories of the sun, divided line, and cave. The remark at 509b, that “the good is beyond essence [ousia],” is also to be noted.
>>25024057So I fucked up?
>>25024039If that's the edition you got, it's a good one.>>25024057>>25024098It's helpful to read Thucydides to see why questions about regimes and whether justice is good for the just man, but it's not so necessary to insist on needing a reading order at the start. If OP thinks he'll need to eventually re-read the Republic, he can go over Thucydides beforehand at that point, but it's fine to treat a first reading of the Republic as an attempt to familiarize oneself with it before a deeper study.
>>25024098yeah man you should try and get your three dollars back
>>25024134It was a library sale, and a sign said all sales final. Maybe if I bring a gun, though?
>>25024167It's a good version. The pdf is probably free but a physical copy for $3 is hard to pass on.
>>25024187Yeah, I hate reading books on my computer. Too many distractions, and I never feel like I absorb anything. It's just in one eye and out the other.
>>25024039Regret isn't the right word but you might be somewhat disappointed. Plato is foundational but forgettable. He was a midwit compared to Aristotle.
>>25024039this is the end game of lit.. be careful
>>25024116Yeah, that's true. I keep my own comment fails to realize I just committed the very thing I warned against. On my first read, it was somewhat difficult to understand. Years later, read Thucydides PW, and a lot of things cleared up after my second reading of The Republic.>>25024098Lol, no. 3 bucks. Unless you are from a certain tribe. Then yes. You lost out.
>>25024057>>25024116Thucydides still does not explain why Sock rats wanted to fuck Alcibiades boipucci
>>25024541>Unless you are from a certain tribe.If we‘re going there, that translator‘s name looks suspicious.
>>25024039the best translation is Reevepic relatedread this instead of that
>>25026025Can I get it for $3?
>>25026025also the introduction which is like 30-50 pages long is great and helps illustrate how Plato's philosophy grew out of the way the Greek language worksi doubt Bloom's "interpretative essay" compares, beginner-wise
>>25026027i got the epub for $0 from zlib way back when heh
>>25024080ousia means existence/being in that casebasically the Good is God, the higher force, the Monad Absolute
>>25026043I know what Ousia means. It’s saying that Good isn’t an essence but something outside physical matter, ie Being It’s important because is an establishing demarcation line between forms and matter.
>>25026093are you autistic or schizotypal? i was commenting on the translation quality in the edition you're quoting from, whichever it is. lemme check how reeve conveyed that
>>25026097Ousia isn’t Being. Being is beyond Ousia. This would put forms more in line with Melissus for example as opposed to Parm with his circle and monad.
>>25026101>Being is beyond Ousia.>being is beyond beingwait you might not just be schizotypal but a full-blown schizophrenic
>>25026107It is remarked in Plato “the good is Beyond Ousia.” It’s something even higher. You would have the Good, then the forms then this lower world and you’d have you the viewer outside of them all with them acting on your soul.
>>25026110aaand i was only commenting on the translation quality
>>25026112Okay.
>>25026101>Ousia isn’t Being. Being is beyond Ousia....where are you getting that from? The participle "ousia" means "that which is," i.e., Being.>>25026025>>25026028I disagree, but say how Reeve's translation, to your mind, is better than Bloom's.
>>25026126Ughhh... Ousia IS Being but Good itself is something even above that. Ie The Melissus sense rather than the Parm one that has a finite dimension and monad.>>25026112It's from herehttps://en.rattibha.com/thread/1716171773589549527
>>25026126>I disagree, but say how Reeve's translation, to your mind, is better than Bloom's.and what determines the quality of translation? it's authenticity and proximity to the original content being translatedReeve is clinically precise in meaning yet also completely readable and easy to understand, it's a modern translation without flowery language and archaisms, and the introduction is great
>>25026151>it'ssorry meant to write its, brainfart
>>25026151I don't know what "authenticity" means here as a standard, but I agree that proximity to the original language is a good standard. But then, Reeve renders the translation in such a way that characters speak like:>Polemarchus: He said it is just to give to each what is owed to him. And a fine saying it is, in my view.>Socrates: Well, now, it is not easy to disagree with Simonides, since he is a wise and godlike man. But what exactly does he mean? Perhaps you know, Polemarchus, but I do not understand. Clearly, he does not mean what we said a moment ago—namely, giving back to someone whatever he has lent to you, even if he is out of his mind when he asks for it. And yet what he has lent to you is surely something that is owed to him, isn’t it?That is, like it's a play, as Plato's other dialogues tend to be written. Whereas Bloom preserves the narrative that Plato wanted to use for the Republic as opposed to other dialogues, and his reads:>“That it is just to give to each what is owed,” he said. “In saying this he said a fine thing, at least in my opinion.”>“Well, it certainly isn’t easy to disbelieve a Simonides,” I said. “He is a wise and divine man. However, you, Polemarchus, perhaps know what on earth he means, but I don’t understand. For plainly he doesn’t mean what we were just saying—giving back to any man whatsoever something he has deposited when, of unsound mind, he demands it. And yet, what he deposited is surely owed to him, isn’t it?”This isn't a small thing either, since book 3 makes a big deal about this very topic. So then, is Reeve more authentic and in proximity in that respect than Bloom?
>>25026175yes he's been criticized for rendering the dialogue as an actual dialogue and not the narrated recollection that it is in the original, but compare the actual content, the phrasing and style>And a fine saying it is, in my view.>In saying this he said a fine thing, at least in my opinion.>Well, now, it is not easy to disagree with Simonides, since he is a wise and godlike man. But what exactly does he mean? Perhaps you know, Polemarchus, but I do not understand.>“Well, it certainly isn’t easy to disbelieve a Simonides,” I said. “He is a wise and divine man. However, you, Polemarchus, perhaps know what on earth he means, but I don’t understand. i don't know ancient greek but i do know that these ancient languages like greek and latin were quite condensed in form and meaning, and Reeve's phrasing seems to me more "greek" and Plato, than Bloom's (or any other's)
>>25026273[Had to edit because the Greek showed up weird]Well, let's compare the Greek. Not in any "lol gottee" way, but we can be more specific here, and maybe both learn something. Let's consider a couple of qualities: # of words (= whether passages are equally condensed), specific renderings, and phrasing. To take the first example:τοῦτο λέγων δοκεῖ ἔμοιγε καλῶς λέγειν I'll put this literally, since it's short and straightforward: "This that-which-is-said it-seems to-me-at-least beautifully said." Six words in Greek, nine in Reeve, thirteen in Bloom. So Reeve gets very close to the length. Now, he also reduces λέγων and λέγειν to just "saying", and the emphatic ἔμοιγε is reduced to "my". So Bloom's more elaborated translation seems to capture the content somewhat better, in keeping the the repetition of the verb λέγειν and preserving the emphatic ἔμοιγε ("at least in my"). Bloom also translates δοκεῖ by bring out the relation of that verb to the word for opinion, which is taken up explicitly in books 5-7. I do think Reeve is more accurate with "a fine saying" than Bloom's "said a fine thing," though I'd really prefer that they had used "beautiful" and not "fine," which today tends to mean something softer, like "okay" or "alright." Both of them shove δοκεῖ ἔμοιγε to the end of their sentences. Second example:ἀλλὰ μέντοι, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, Σιμωνίδῃ γε οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἀπιστεῖν--σοφὸς γὰρ καὶ θεῖος ἀνήρ--τοῦτο μέντοι ὅτι ποτὲ λέγει, σὺ μέν, ὦ Πολέμαρχε, ἴσως γιγνώσκεις, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀγνοῶ This would require more explaining to put literally, so I'll skip that. Twenty-nine words in Greek, thirty-three in Reeve, thirty-two in Bloom, which puts them on similar footing, they're both in range with the Greek. ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ isn't translated in Reeve, that would be Socrates' narrative insertion "I said" in Bloom's. Reeve treats ἀπιστεῖν as "disagree," and it can connote that, but Bloom's "disbelieve" is literal. I think Reeve's "godlike" for θεῖος is stronger than Bloom's "divine." Neither of them really render the next clause literally; Reeve turns it into a question, Bloom uses an English idiom ("what on Earth"). They both render ἴσως γιγνώσκεις as "perhaps you know", and Bloom is slightly more similar to the Greek word order ("σὺ...Πολέμαρχε, ἴσως γιγνώσκεις"; "you, Polemarchus, perhaps know"). They both effectively the same way, Bloom seems more comfortable with contractions. Does this help show a little what's going on with both via random passage?
Bloom's edition is pretty good. I enjoyed his long interpretive essay after the translation proper.Fun fact: Alan Bloom was a Straussian.
>>25026393The funner fact is that he studied with Kojeve.
>>25026393>Thinkers have exoteric and esoteric teachings.>My exoteric teaching is that young people should spend more time studying the classics that I teach.>My esoteric teaching is that I'm gay and you should have gay sex with me.
>Their idea of Democracy was a playground where people could live out all their wacky fantasies without prejudice and the only people who would dislike it would be rich, coddled assholesIf only
