Regular marked price: $55.00Discount Price: $49.50
Cost Savings: $5.50 (10%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 321.07
EAN num: 9780198274292
ISBN number: 0198274297
Label: Oxford University Press, USA
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 370
Printing Date: June 18, 1981
Publishing house: Oxford University Press, USA
Sale Popularity Level: 276896
Studio: Oxford University Press, USA
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
This interpretive introduction provides unique insight into Plato's Republic. Stressing Plato's desire to stimulate philosophical thinking in his readers, Julia Annas here demonstrates the coherence of his main moral argument on the nature of justice, and expounds related concepts of education, human motivation, knowledge and understanding. In a clear systematic fashion, this book shows that modern moral philosophy still has much to learn from Plato's endeavor to move the focus from questions of what acts the just person ought to perform to the more profound questions of what sort of person the just person ought to be.
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
This book grew out of Annas' experience of teaching Plato's Republic to students in a course that's all about evaluating Plato's arguments for their philosophical merit. She aims for this goal so single-mindedly as to deprive herself from providing to her audience any further profits a book on Plato's Republic may provide - profits such as, fuel the reader's sheer enjoyment of reading Plato, or learn at a more accurate level what Plato's views were.
For instance, this book makes a case for Plato being a mysogynist (women-hater) and favoring dictatorship of the (almost) worst kind. Unless you happen to favor those views yourself, this won't add much to making Plato an enjoyable read for you. What's worse, however, is that the book doesn't actually spend sufficient time arguing for those interpretations, let alone addressing countervailing ones. And on that level it achieves the very opposite of what it set out to do, namely make people engage critically with a set text.
You see, the idea might have been to make people read Annas so as to engage with Plato critically. The problem however is that people who aren't critically minded to begin with won't start to become so simply by being told - a point Plato's Socrates was fully aware of but this book (apparently) isn't. Rather, what I repeatedly find in student essays on the Republic is that they swallow Annas's claims, enjoy the short lived pleasure of scoring cheap points in the game called "acing your exam essay", without ever engaging critically with either Annas or (for that matter) Plato.
To see what a vast difference an author can make to encourage readers to engage with his book critically, have a look at Burnyeat's "Theaetetus", a fine work on many levels, and an outstanding example of what writing on Plato can be without being mindless praise.
Personally I'm glad there are more rewarding books to recommend to students of Plato's Republic these days, and if you're interested at all, I suggest you have a look at the multi-authored "Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic" (2007) and "Blackwell Guide to Plato's Republic" (2006).
Rated by buyers 
-
What is wonderful about this study by Julia Annas is the personal tone of her writing; her profound knowledge of ancient Greek philosophy and Plato is constantly confronted with her own views as a modern philosopher of our times, at times she admires Plato and at others she is shocked by his extremism. The only other study written this clearly is Nicholas Whites' "A Companion to Plato's Repbulic."
The only thing I miss is a discusion of the literary, theatrical aspect of the text, the question being: are all of Socrates' views in the Republic really Plato's own? Is not Socrates a mask, an actor for Plato? Julia Annas automatically ascribes Socrates' views to Plato in her study. But this is of course an option that is possible, although not shared by all scholars.
Rated by buyers -
This book is profoundly flawed. The author is oblivious to the implications of her admitted license. For instance, she uses the term 'moral' while admitting that it comes from a tradition post-dating Plato ('Introduction' p.11) and uses it to smear across distictions Plato himself found necessary. Professor Annas refuses to deal with the core concepts, as core concepts specific to Plato's time and place, and substitutes them playfully with her own modern day conceits. I quote: "I shall use 'morality' for the area of practical reasoning carried on by an agent which is concerned with the best way for a person to live." Why does she need to do this? If one was to say 'the best way to live' as Plato himself does, is that not sufficent? Does the reader/student really need a professor to explain that Plato really means 'morality'?. Baffling is why so much time is spent on non-Platonic terminology. To continually butcher 'The Republic' with these artificial terms, such as 'moral', 'values', 'society', and 'state' is to assume 'we' know more than 'they' did. This is a historical prejudice , and it does an injustice to the unsuspecting reader/student. Moreover, Professor Annas seems to be obtuse to the dramatic quality of the dialogue. An educated reader of this book cannot help but think this when the author stumbles across (454d-e) of 'The Republic'- quoting Socrates "the male begets, the female gives birth." Professor Annas then evaluates the statement, "This is an admirable argument as far as it goes; for Plato has removed any possibility of treating women as inferior as a class...but the argument suffers from being too generally stated" ( 'Plato's State', ch.7,p. 182 bottom). The author goes on to give her opinion on why it is too general- i.e: her considered views on the merits of a gender equality argument- which is fine and worth reading on it's own terms, if it was offered as such, but it is not offered as such. This is suppost to be a book on 'Plato's Republic', thus the title. Ask yourself- is that true? Is the only difference between men and women that men mount, or begat, and women bear, or give birth? That is what Plato and Socrates are asking? If the author of a commentary on 'The Republic' does not take that question seriously, and goes on to sum up her interpretation on the dramatic episode as: "Plato is confused." (p. 184), how can a reader take it seriously?
Rated by buyers -
The Republic covers many subjects and it's not possible for someone to write a comprensive book on the Republic. Most of the book written on the Republic usually focus on few particular subjects (the most notable one is justice). An Introduction to Plato's Republic is one of the few exception. Julia Annas doesn't interpreted the Republic from one point of view. She presented the Republic as Plato intended.. In the others words, the Republic is not the book about Politic only; it is also the book of metaphysics, educations, morality. Every chapters are very thorough and extensive but simple enough to read..
Find other books like this one:
