Lihat sumber Republik (Plato)

{{Dialogues of Plato}}
'''''Republik''''' ([[bahasa Yunani kuno|Yunani]]: {{polytonic|Πολιτεία}}, ''Politeia'') adalah sebuah karya [[filsafat]] dan [[filsafat politik|teori politik]] yang berpengaruh karya [[filsafat Yunani|filsuf Yunani]], [[Plato]], yang ditulis sekitar [[360 SM]]. Buku ini ditulis dalam format [[dialog Socrates]].

==  Judul ==
Judul asli karya ini adalah kata dalam bahasa Yunani {{polytonic|πολιτεία}} (lihat: [[politeia]]). "The Republic" (bahasa Indonesia: "Republik"), terjemahan tradisional dalam bahasa Inggris, sebetulnya salah kaprah, yang diambil dari bahasa Latin Cicero (lihat pula ''[[De re publica]]'').

Judulnya dalam bahasa Yunani ''Politeia'' berasal dari kata "[[polis]]", yang lebih kurang dapat diterjemahkan dengan kata "kota", atau lebih tepatnya "negara-kota". Untuk mencerminkan makna ini, banyak bahasa menerjemahkan ''Politeia'' sebagai ''Negara'' (bahasa Inggris: ''The State''), termasuk [[bahasa Belanda]] (''De staat'') dan bahasa Jerman (''Der Staat''). Konsep ''politeia'' dalam bahas Yunani kuno dianggap sebagai suatu cara hidup. Jadi, pada kenyataannya terjemahan yang lebih tepat mestinya adalah 'bagaimana cara kita hidup sebagai masyarakat' (untuk pemahaman yang lebih baik lihat [[Politik (Aristoteles)|''Politik'' karya Aristoteles]]).

Di dalam karya ini, Plato tampaknya menggunakan kata "politeia" secara lebih spesifik dalam pengertian [[bentuk pemerintahan]], setidak-tidaknya menurut [[Henry George Liddell|Liddell]] dan [[Robert Scott (philologist)|Scott]] dalam kamus mereka ''[[Greek-English Lexicon]]''.<ref>Lihat [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2384506 Laman "Politeia" dalam Henry George Liddell dan Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'' dalam situs Perseus] - dalam laman ini makna "bentuk pemerintahan" secara spesifik disebutkan untuk kata {{polytonic|πολιτεία}} yang terdapat dalam ''Republik'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Rep.+8.562a 562a] dan [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Rep.+8.544b 544b]</ref> Makna "politeia" ini biasanya tidak digunakan untuk meruuk kepada judul karya ini.

Kadang-kadang ''Masalah-masalah Polis'' diajukan sebagai terjemahan harfiah judulnya.

== Setting dan tokoh-tokoh dalam drama ==
Tokoh-tokoh utama dalam ''Republik'' adalah:
* [[Socrates]]
* [[Glaucon]], kakak laki-laki Plato
* [[Adeimantus]], kakak laki-laki Plato yang lainnya
* Tokoh-tokoh lainnya yang kecil adalah [[Cephalus (tokoh)|Cephalus]], seorang pembuat senjata lanjut usia;<ref>Profesi Cephalus tidak disebutkan dalam ''Republik'', tetapi pabrik perisainya, di mana dipekerjakan sekitar 120 orang budak, dibahas dalam pidato ''Menentang Eratosthenes'' oleh anak lelakinya [[Lysias]].</ref> [[Polemarchus]], anak lelaki Cephalus; [[Thrasymachus]], seorang [[sofis]]; sahabatnya [[Cleitophon]]; [[Charmantides]], seorang anak lelaki Cephalus lainnya
* Ada tiga orang tokoh yang tidak ikut berbicara: [[Lysias]] dan [[Euthydemus]], anak-anak lelaki Cephalus, dan [[Niceratus]].

Dialog ini berlangsung di rumah Cephalus di [[Piraeus]], sebuah kota pelabuhan di luar tembok-tembok kota Athena kuno. Kota ini adalah pintu keluar-masuk perdagangan ke dalam kota. Socrates tampaknya tidak biasa pergi keluar kota Athena. Seluruh dialog ini disampaikan oleh Socrates sehari setelah dialog itu sesungguhnya berlangsung, kepada [[Timaeus dari Locres|Timaeus]], [[Hermocrates]], dan [[Critias]], antara lain.<ref>Lihat pengantar [[Benjamin Jowett]] untuk terjemahannya atas ''Republik'' karya Plato.</ref>

== Tema ==
[[Berkas:P. Oxy. LII 3679.jpg|jmpl|Bagian dari P.Oxy. LII 3679, abad ke-3, berisi pecahan Republik karya Plato.]]
Referensi kepada ''Republik'' biasanya dibuat menurut nomor buku, [[halaman Stephanus]], dan (yang lebih jarang) menurut nomor buku dan nomor halaman.

=== Struktur ===
Berikut ini adalah tiga tafsiran, atau ringkasan, dari dialog ini. Mereka tak boleh dianggap sebagai represntasi yang tuntas, melainkan mewakili pandangan yang dapat diterima tentang karya ini dalam bahasa Inggris kontemporer.

==== Bertrand Russell ====
Dalam bukunya ''[[History of Western Philosophy (Russell)|History of Western Philosophy]]'' (Sejarah Filsafat Barat - 1945), [[Bertrand Russell]] melihat tiga bagian dalam ''Republik'' karya Plato:<ref>[[Bertrand Russell|Russell, Bertrand]], ''[[History of Western Philosophy (Russell)|History of Western Philosophy]]'', dimulai dalam Buku I, bagian 2, bab 14.</ref>
# Buku I-V: Bagian ''Utopia'', menggambarkan komunitas yang ideal, dimulai dari upaya untuk mendefinisikan ''keadilan'';
# Buku VI-VII: karena para [[filsuf]] dianggap sebagai penguasa atau pemimpin ideal dari komunitas tersebut, bagian teks ini berkonsentrasi pada definisi tentang apa atau siapakah seorang filsuf itu;
# Buku VIII-X: membahas sejumlah [[bentuk pemerintahan]] yang praktis, pro dan kontranya.

Inti bagian kedua ini dibahas dalam ''[[alegori Plato tentang gua]]'', dan artikel-artikel yang terkait dengan [[realisme Platonis|teori Plato tentang bentuk (yang ideal)]]. Bagian yang ketiga juga memusatkan perhatian pada [[pendidikan]], juga sangat terkait erat dengan [[Hukum (Plato)|dialog-dialog Plato tentang ''Hukum'']].

==== Sub-divisi oleh Cornford, Hildebrandt dan Voegelin ====
[[Francis Cornford]], [[Kurt Hildebrandt]] dan [[Eric Voegelin]] ikut menyumbang dalam menetapkan sub-sub divisi yang ditandai dengan rumusan-rumusan khusus dalam bahasa Yunani:
 
; Prolog: I.1. 327a—328b. Pergi ke Piraeus
:I.2—I.5. 328b—331d. Cephalus. Keadilan menurut Generasi Lama
:I.6—1.9. 331e—336a. Polemarchus. Keadilan menurut Generasi Menengah
:I.10—1.24. 336b—354c. Thrasymachus. Keadilan kaum Sofis

; Pengantar: II.1—II.10. 357a—369b. Pertanyaan: Apakah Keadilan Lebih Baik daripada Ketidakadilan?

; Bagian I<nowiki>:</nowiki> Terbentuknya dan Tata-Tertib Polis: II.11—II.16. 369b—376e. Asal usul Polis
:II.1—III.18. 376e—412b. Pendidikan para Wali
:III.19—IV.5. 412b—427c. Konstitusi Polis
:IV.6—IV.I9. 427c—445e. Keadilan di dalam Polis

; Bagian II<nowiki>:</nowiki> Perwujudan Ide: V.1—V.16. 449a—471c. Satuan Somatik Polis dan Orang-orang Hellenes [Yunani]
:V.17—VI.14. 471c—502c. Aturan para Filsuf
:VI.19—VII.5. 502c—521c. Gagasan tentang Agathon
:VII.6—VII.18. 521c—541b. Pendidikan para Filsuf

; Bagian III<nowiki>:</nowiki> Kemerosotan Polis:VIII.1—VIII.5. 543a—550c. Timokrasi
:VIII.6—VIII.9. 550c—555b. Oligarki
:VIII.10—VIII.13. 555b—562a. Demokrasi
:VIII.I4—IX-3. 562a—576b. Tirani

; Kesimpulan: IX.4—IX.13. 576b—592b Jawaban: Keadilan Lebih Baik daripada Ketidakadilan

; Epilog: X.1—X.8. 595a—608b. Penolakan terhadap Seni Mimetik
: X.9—X.11. 608c—612a. Keabadian Jiwa
: X.12. 612a—613e. Ganjaran Keadilan dalam Hidup
: X.13—X.16. 613e—631d. Penghakiman atas Yang Telah Meninggal

<!--The paradigm of the [[city]] - the idea of the [[Good]], of the [[Agathon]] - has for Plato a manifold of historical embodiments. The embodiment must be undertaken by those who have seen the Agathon and are ordered through the vision. Hence, in the centre piece of the Republic, Part II, 2-3, Plato deals with the rule of the philosopher and the vision of the Agathon in the famous [[allegory of the cave]], with which Plato clarifies his [[theory of forms]].

That center piece is preceded and followed by the discussion of the means that will secure a well-ordered polis. Part II, 1 deals with marriage, the community of people and goods for the guardians, and the restraints on warfare among the Hellenes. It has been incorrectly described as a communistic utopia, a word that is not even extant in classical Greek. Part II, 4 deals with the philosophical education of the rulers who will preserve the order.

The central Part II, the Embodiment of the Idea, is preceded by the building of economic and social of order for a polis in Part I; and is followed by an analysis in Part III, of the decline through which the right order will have to pass. The three parts form the main body of the dialogue, with their discussion of paradigm, its embodiment, its genesis, and its decline.

That main body is framed by an Introduction and a Conclusion. The discussion of right order was occasioned by a question whether justice is better than injustice, or whether unjust man will not fare better than the just man. The introductory question is balanced by the concluding answer that justice is preferable to injustice.

The main body of the dialogue, together with its Introduction and Conclusion, finally, is framed by the Prologue of Book I and the Epilogue of Book X. The prologue is a short dialogue in itself and it portrays the common opinions [[doxai]] about justice. The Epilogue is not grounded in reason but in faith. It describes the new arts and the immortality of the soul.

==== Leo Strauss ====
[[Leo Strauss]] sees a four-part structure of the dialogue: he looks at the entire dialogue as a drama played out between particular characters, each with particular points of view and levels of comprehension: 
#Book I: Socrates is compelled by force to [[Cephalus (person)|Cephalus]]'s home. Three definitions of justice are presented, and all three are found lacking.
#Books II-V: Socrates is challenged by [[Glaucon]] and [[Adeimantus]] to prove why a perfectly just person, who is seen by the entire world as unjust, would be happier than the perfectly unjust person, who hides his injustice from view and is seen by the entire world as just. This stark challenge is the engine and drive of the dialogue; it is only with this 'charge' that we begin to witness how Socrates actually conducted himself with the young men of Athens he was convicted of corrupting. Because a definition of justice is assumed by Glaucon and Adeimantus, Socrates makes a detour; he forces the group to try to uncover justice, and then to answer the question posed to him about the intrinsic value of the just life. 
#Books V-VI: The 'Just City in Speech' is now built from the earlier books, and three waves or critiques of the city are encountered. According to Leo Strauss and his student [[Allan Bloom]] they are: communism, communism of wives and children, and the rule of philosophers. The 'Just City in Speech’ stands or falls by these complications. 
#Books VII-X: Socrates has 'escaped' his capturers, for he has convinced them, at least for the moment, that the just man is the happy man. He then spends much time reinforcing their prejudices. He displays a rationale for political decay, and he ends the dialogue recounting a myth, [[The Myth of Er]], or [[everyman]], which acts as a consolation for non-philosophers who fear death.

===Topics===
====Definition of justice====
The question ''The Republic'' sets out to define is "what is justice?". Given the difficulty of this task, [[Socrates]] and his interlocutors are led into a discussion of justice in the city, which Socrates suggests may help them see justice in the person, but on a grander (and therefore easier to discuss) scale.  Because of this, some critics (such as [[Julia Annas]]) interpret Plato's paradigm of a just state as an allegory for the paradigm of the just person. Justice is never defined satisfactorially to all participants throughout the dialogue. After Book V, the dialogue concentrates on convincing Glaucon and Adeimantus of Socrates' view of justice; the other characters remain silent throughout these books.

In the first book, three versions of justice come to be proposed and deemed inadequate. The sophist [[Thrasymachus]] states that justice is nothing but the power of the stronger. This seems counter-intuitive to Socrates, who begins to explore this concept of justice. Thrasymachus believes that the law of a polis, or justice, is nothing but the will of the ruler(s). Thrasymachus is aggressive in advancing this view, he says justice is the advantage of the man who is cunning enough to take power and institute his will upon the people. As a result of this, those who break the law become powerful, eventually rising to the position of rulers in society. Socrates accepts this view, but asks whether the ruler who makes a mistake to his advantage, institutes a law or policy that lessens his well-being, is still a ruler according to the sophist's definition. Sophists made their living in Greece by teaching young men how to rule successfully, and thus Socrates exploits this fact, indirectly undermining Thrasymachus' own definition of justice. This results in a turning point in the dialogue, for Thrasymachus blushes; afterwards, he is silent, as Socrates begins to teach the young men.

Beginning in Book II, a definition of justice is furthered as the working of a person in the role for which you are best suited, and for not interfering in the work of others. This conception of justice, striking to the modern reader, is closely linked to the Greek conception of [[dike (goddess)|dike]], the just order. This definition of justice leads to a social structure radically different from most previous and subsequent states. Nevertheless, a reader must always be aware that Plato is writing a dialogue in which the dramatic quality has a weight. Socrates, in fact, proceeds in a very different manner than in Book I, where he attacks Thrasymachus's view of justice directly. In response to the two views of injustice and justice presented by Glaucon and Adeimantus, he claims incompetence, but feels it would be impious to leave justice in such doubt.

The argument that is advanced by Glaucon is based on the legend of Gyges who discovered a ring that gave him the power to become invisible.Glaucon uses this story to argue for the thesis that no man would be just if he had the opportunity of doing injustice with impunity. With the power to become invisible, Gyges is able to enter the royal court unobserved, seduce the queen, murder the king,  and take over the kingdom. Glaucon argues that the just as well as the unjust man would do the same if they had the power to get away with injustice exempt from punishment. The only reason that men are just and praise justice is out of fear of being punished for injustice. The law is a product of compromise between individuals that agree not to do injustice to others if others will not do injustice to them. Glaucon says that if they had the power to do injustice without fear of punishment they would be mad to enter into such an agreement. Glaucon uses this argument to challenge Socrates to defend the position that the just life is better than the unjust life. Socrates says that there is no better topic to debate.  In fact, Socrates (368a-c) does not challenge the arguments, but proposes to create a thought-experiment to better define and thus defend justice. Much of the Republic is a response to Glaucon’s argument.

Socrates defines justice as "working at that which he is naturally best suited," and "to do one's own business and not to be a busybody" (433a5-433b) and goes on to say that justice sustains and perfects the other three [[Cardinal virtues|cardinal virtues]], Temperance, Wisdom, and Courage and that justice is the cause and condition of their existence.  A result of this conception of justice separates people into three types; that of the soldier, that of the producer, and that of a ruler.  If a ruler can create just laws, and if the warriors can carry out the orders of the rulers, and if the producers can obey this authority, then a society will be just.

In terms of why it is best to be just rather than unjust for the individual, Plato prepares an answer in Book IV consisting of three main arguments.  Plato says that a tyrant's nature will leave him with "horrid pains and pangs" and that the typical tyrant engages in a lifestyle that will be physically and mentally exacting on such a ruler.  Such a disposition is in contrast to the truth-loving philosopher king, and a tyrant "never tastes of true freedom or friendship".  The second argument proposes that of all the different types of person, only the Philosopher is able to judge which type of ruler is best since only he can see the [[Form of the Good]].  Thirdly, Plato argues, "Pleasures which are approved of by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest".  In sum, Plato argues that philosophical pleasure is the only true pleasure since other pleasures experienced by others are simply a neutral state free of pain.

====The form of government====
[[Socratic problem|Socrates]] points out the human tendency to [[Political corruption|corruption]] by [[Power (sociology)|power]] and thus the road from [[timocracy]], [[oligarchy]], [[democracy]] and [[tyranny]]: ruling should be left to philosophers, the most just and therefore least susceptible to corruption. That "good city" is depicted as being governed by philosopher-kings; disinterested persons who rule not for their personal enjoyment but for the good of the city-state ([[polis]]). 
The paradigmatic society which stands behind every historical society is hierarchical, but social classes have a marginal permeability; there are no slaves, no discrimination between men and women. In addition to the ruling class of guardians (phulakes) which abolished riches there is a class of private producers (''demiourgoi'') be they rich or poor. A number of provisions aim to avoid making the people weak: the substitution for debilitating music, poetry and theatre of a universal educational system for men and women -- a startling departure from Greek society. These provisions apply to all classes, and the restrictions placed on the philosopher-kings and the warriors are much more severe than those placed on the producers, because the rulers must be kept away from any source of corruption.

In Books V-VI the abolishment of riches among the guardian class (not unlike [[Max Weber]]'s [[bureaucracy]]) leads controversially to the abandonment of the typical family, and as such no child may know his or her parents and the parents may not know their own children. Socrates tells a tale which is the "allegory of the good government". No nepotism, no private goods. The rulers assemble couples for reproduction, based on breeding criteria. Thus, stable population is achieved through [[Eugenics|eugenism]] and social cohesion is projected to be high because familial links are extended towards everyone in the City.  Also the education of the youth is such that they are taught of only works of writing that encourage them to improve themselves for the state's good, and envision (the) god(s) as entirely good, just, and the author(s) of only that which is good.

In Books VII-X stand Plato's criticism of the forms of government. It begins with the dismissal of timocracy, a sort of authoritarian regime, not unlike a military dictatorship. Plato offers a psychoanalytical explanation of the "timocrat" as one who saw his father humiliated by his mother and wants to vindicate "manliness". The third worst regime is oligarchy, the rule of a small band of rich people, millionaires that only respect money. Then comes the [[democracy|democratic]] form of government, and its susceptibility to being ruled by unfit "sectarians" [[demagogues]]. Finally the worst regime is tyranny, where the whimsical desires of the ruler became law and there is no check upon arbitrariness.

====Theory of universals====
:''See also [[Problem of universals]], [[Plato's allegory of the cave]] and [[The Forms]]

''The Republic'' contains [[Plato's allegory of the cave|Plato's ''Allegory of the cave'']] with which he explains his concept of [[The Forms]] as an answer to the [[problem of universals]].

The allegory of the cave is an attempt to justify the philosopher's place in society as king.  Plato imagines a group of people who have lived in a cave all of their lives, chained to a wall in the subterrane so they cannot see outside nor look behind them.  Behind these prisoners is a constant flame that illuminates various statues that are moved by others, which cause shadows to flicker around the cave.  When the people of the cave see these shadows they realise how imitative they are of human life, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows such as either "dog" or "cat".  The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to seeing reality, according to Plato.

Plato then goes on to explain how the philosopher is a former prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constituitive of reality at all.  He sees that the fire and the statues which cause the shadows are indeed more real than the shadows themselves, and therefore apprehends how the prisoners are so easily deceived.  Plato then imagines that the freedman is taken outside of the cave and into the real world.  The prisoner is initially blinded by the light.  However when he adjusts to the brightness, he eventually understands that all of the real objects around him are illuminated by the sun (which represents the [[Form of the Good]], the form which has caused the brightness).  He also realises it is the sun to which he is indebted to for being able to see the beauty and goodness in the objects around him.  The freedman is finally cognisant that the fire and statues in the cave were just copies of the real objects in the world.

The prisoner's stages of understanding correlate with the levels on the [[The divided line of Plato|divided line]] that Plato imagines.  The line is divided into what is the visible world, and what the intelligible world is, with the divider being the Sun.  When the prisoner is in the cave, he is obviously in the visible realm that receives no sunlight, and outside he comes to be in the intelligible realm.

The shadows in the cave that the prisoners can see correspond to the lowest level on Plato's line, that of imagination and conjecture.  Once the prisoner is freed and spots the fire's reflection onto the statues which causes the shadows in the cave, he reaches the second stage on the divided line, and that is the stage of belief, as the freedman comes to believe that the statues in the cave are real as can be.  On leaving the cave however the prisoner comes to see objects more real than the statues inside of the cave, and this correlates with the third stage on Plato's line as being understanding.  The prisoner is therefore able to ascribe Forms to objects as they exist outside of the cave.  Lastly, the prisoner turns to the sun which he grasps as the source of truth, or the Form of the Good, and this last stage, named as dialectic, is the highest possible stage on the line.  The prisoner, as a result of the Form of the Good, can begin to understand all other forms in reality.

Allegorically, Plato reasons that the freedman is the philosopher, who is the only person able to discern the Form of the Good, and thus absolute goodness and truth.  Since the philosopher is the only one able to recognise what is truly good, and only he can reach the last stage on the divided line, only he is fit to rule society according to Plato.

==Reception and interpretation==
===Ancient Greece===
The idea of writing treatises on systems of government was followed some decades later by Plato's most prominent pupil [[Aristotle]]. He wrote a treatise for which he used another [[Greek (language)|Greek]] word "[[politika]]" in the title. The title of Aristotle's work is conventionally translated to "politics": see [[Politics (Aristotle)|''Politics'' (Aristotle)]].

Aristotle's treatise was not written in dialogue format: it systematises many of the concepts brought forward by Plato in his ''Republic'', in some cases leading the author to a different conclusion as to what options are the most preferable.

===Ancient Rome===
====Cicero====
The English translation of the title of Plato's dialogue is derived from [[Cicero]]'s ''[[De re publica]]'', a dialogue written some three centuries later. Cicero's dialogue imitates the style of the Platonic dialogues, and treats many of the topics touched upon in Plato's ''Republic''. [[Scipio Africanus Minor|Scipio Africanus]], the main character of Cicero's dialogue expresses his esteem for Plato and Socrates when they are talking about the "[[Res publica]]". "Res publica" is not an exact translation of the Greek word "politeia" that Plato used in the title of his dialogue: "politeia" is a general term indicating the various forms of government that could be used and were used in a ''Polis'' or city-state.

While in Plato's ''Republic'' Socrates and his friends discuss the nature of the [[city]] and are engaged in providing the foundations of every state they are living in (which was Athenian democracy, [[oligarchy]] or tyranny - in Cicero's ''De re publica'' all comments, are more parochial about (the improvement of) the organisation of the state the participants live in, which was the [[Roman Republic]] in its final stages.

==== Kritik ====
In antiquity, Plato's works were largely acclaimed, still, some commentators had another view. [[Tacitus]], not mentioning Plato or ''The Republic'' nominally in this passage (so his critique extends, to a certain degree, to Cicero's ''Republic'' and [[Politics (Aristotle)|Aristotle's ''Politics'']] as well, to name only a few), noted the following (''[[Annals (Tacitus)|Ann.]]'' IV, 33):
{|-
|&nbsp;
|valign="top"|''Nam cunctas nationes et urbes populus aut primores aut singuli regunt: delecta ex iis (his) et consociata (constituta) rei publicae forma laudari facilius quam evenire, vel si evenit, haud diuturna esse potest.''
|&nbsp;
|valign="top"|Indeed, a nation or city is ruled by the people, or by an upper class, or by a monarch. A government system that is invented [[Mixed government|from a choice of these same components]] is sooner idealised than realised; and even if realised, there'll be no future for it.
|}
The point Tacitus develops in the paragraphs immediately preceding and following that quote is that the minute analysis and description of how a real state was governed, as he does in his ''Annals'', however boring the related facts might be (...if, for example, the regnants refuse to declench a spectacular war,...), has more practical lessons about good vs. bad governance, than philosophical treatises on the ideal form of government have.<ref>This text by Tacitus also mirrors the first paragraphs of [[Polybius]]' ''Histories'': Tacitus clearly sides with Polybius who also touts the importance of studying real history for improving knowledge on good governance - ''However'' Polybius can boast in these same opening paragraphs his story is about glorious facts and warfare; Tacitus argues the fact remains true, even if the story is ''less'' glorious. For this reason Tacitus' critique is only ''partially'' directed at [[Cicero]], who learnt not less from Polybius and war heroes like Scipio, as from the more ''philosophical/utopian'' Greek writers.</ref>

====Augustinus====
In the pivotal era of Rome's move from its ancient [[polytheism|polytheist]] religion to Christianity, [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] wrote his magnum opus ''[[The City of God]]'': again, the references to Plato, Aristotle and Cicero and their visions of the ideal state were legion: Augustinus equally described a model of the "ideal city", in his case the eternal [[Jerusalem]], using a visionary language not unlike that of the preceding philosophers.

===Thomas More's Utopia===
[[Thomas More]], when writing his ''[[Utopia (novel)|Utopia]]'', invented the technique of using the portrayal of a "utopia" as the carrier of his thoughts about the ideal society. In Thomas More's [[Utopia]], the island Utopia is also similar to Plato's Republic in some aspects, among them common property and the lack of privacy.

===20th Century===
Most 20th century commentators of Plato's ''Republic'' advise against reading it as a (would-be) manual for ''good governance'': most forms of government discussed in ''The Republic'' bear little resemblance to more recent state organisations like (modern) [[republic]]s or [[constitutional monarchy|constitutional monarchies]]. Also, the concepts of democracy and of Utopia as depicted in ''The Republic'' are tied to the [[city-state]]s of [[History of Ancient Greece|ancient Greece]] and their relevance to modern states is questionable.

====Gadamer====
In his 1934 ''Plato und die Dichter'' (Plato and the Poets), as well as several other works, [[Hans-Georg Gadamer]] describes the utopic city of ''The Republic'' as a [[heuristic]] [[utopia]] that should not be pursued or even be used as an orientation-point for political development. Rather, its purpose is said to be to show how things would have to be connected, and how one thing would lead to another — often with highly problematic results — if one would opt for certain principles and carry them through rigorously. This interpretation argues that large passages in Plato's writing are [[irony|ironic]].

====Popper====
The city portrayed in ''The Republic'' struck some critics as unduly harsh, rigid, and unfree; indeed, as a kind of precursor to modern [[totalitarianism]]. [[Karl Popper]] gave a voice to that view in his [[1945]] book ''[[The Open Society and its Enemies]]''. Popper singled out Plato's state as a utopia which was argued by Plato to be the destiny of man.  In particular, Popper thought Plato's envisioned state had totalitarian features as it advocated a government not elected by its citizens, with the identification of the ruling class' interests as being the fate and direction of the state.  In addition, Plato's state aimed at [[autarky]], and advocated [[censorship]] according to Popper.<ref name="popper">[[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl]] (1950) ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]], Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato'', New York: Routledge, pp. 91-92.</ref>

====Voegelin====
Eric Voegelin in [[Plato and Aristotle]], Baton Rouge, 1957, gave  meaning to the concept of ‘Just City in Speech’ (Books II-V). For instance, there is evidence in the dialogue that [[Socrates]] himself would not be a member of his 'ideal' state. His life was almost solely dedicated to the private pursuit of [[knowledge]]. More practically, [[Socrates]] suggests that members of the lower classes could rise to the higher ruling class, and vice versa, if they had ‘gold’ in their veins. It is a crude version of the concept of [[social mobility]]. The exercise of power is built on the ‘Noble Lie’ that all men are brothers, [[philadelphia]] born of the earth, yet there is a clear hierarchy and class divisions. There is a tri-partite explanation of human psychology that is extrapolated to the city, the relation among peoples. There is no [[family]] among the guardians, another crude version of [[Max Weber|Max Weber's]] concept of [[bureaucracy]] as the state non-private concern.

====Strauss, Bloom====
Some of [[Plato]]’s proposals have led [[philosophers]] like [[Leo Strauss]] and [[Allan Bloom]] to ask readers to consider the possibility that [[Socrates]] was creating not a blueprint for a real city, but a learning exercise for the young men in the dialogue. The ruling class will have ‘sacred’ marriages  because these are the result of manipulating and drugging couples into predetermined intercourse with the aim of eugenically breeding guardian-warriors. In turn, [[Plato]] has immortalized this ‘learning exercise’ in ''The Republic''.

Leo Strauss's approach developed out a belief that [[Plato]] wrote esoterically, an insight which although presently accepted by many North American academics, is still rather poorly conceived. The basic acceptance of the [[exoteric]]-[[esoteric]] distinction revolves around whether Plato really wanted to see “The Just City in Speech” of Books V-VI come to pass, or whether it is just an [[allegory]]. Strauss never regarded this as the crucial issue. In fact, Strauss undermines the justice found in “The Just City in Speech” by implying the city is not natural, it is man made abstraction, and hence ironic.

An argument that has been used against these less dismissive interpretations is that Plato's academy has produced a number of [[tyrant]]s, despite being well-versed in Greek and having direct contact with Plato himself. Among his direct students were [[Klearchos]], tyrant of [[Heraklia]], [[Chairon]], tyrant of [[Pellene]], [[Eurostatos]] and [[Choriskos]], tyrants of [[Skepsis]], [[Hermias of Atarneus]] and [[Assos]], and [[Kallipos]], tyrant of [[Syracuse, Italy|Syracuse]].  Against this, it can be argued, first, that the question is whether these men became "tyrants" through studying in the Academy (rather that it was an elite student body, part of which would wind up in the seats of power, that was sent to study there), and, second, that it is by no means obvious that they were tyrants in the modern, or any totalitarian, sense.

====Practicality====
All these 20th century views have something in common: in spite of the near-impossibility of grasping the meanings of the ancient Greek for modern readers, the pedagogical value of ''The Republic'' is much greater than its practical value. It is a theoretical work, not a set of guidelines for good governance. Plato scholars see it as their task to provide the background knowledge that is needed to gain a fair understanding of what was meant by the author of ''The Republic''. Then the uniqueness of ''The Republic'' shows up in the way it clarifies genuine connections of political causes and effects in real life, precisely by providing them with a heuristically rich context.

Nonetheless [[Bertrand Russell]] argues that at least in ''intent'', and all in all not so far from what was possible in ancient Greek city-states, the form of government portrayed in ''The Republic'' was meant as a practical one by Plato.<ref>Russell, B. (2004) ''[[History of Western Philosophy (Russell)|History of Western Philosophy]]'', end of Book I, part 2, ch. 14.</ref> -->

== Persamaaan dalam literatur ==
=== Aristofanes ===
Sekitar waktu yang sama ketika ''Republik'' disusun, [[dramatis]] [[Aristofanes]] memproduksi drama [[Perempuan-perempuan Parlemen]]. Negara yang dibentuk oleh kaum perempuan dalam drama ini banyak kesamaannya dengan pemerintahan ideal yang digambarkan oleh Plato. Tidak jelas mana yang diterbitkan pertama; kemungkinan sekali Aristofanes pernah mendengar bentuk awal ''Republik'' sebelum diselesaikan dan digunakan sebagai dasar untuk ''Perempuan-perempuan Parlemen''.

=== Utopia ===
Lihat atas, [[#Utopia Thomas More|Thomas More]].

=== Distopia ===
Bentuk pemerintahan yang digambarkan dalam Republik telah diadaptasi dalam sejumlah novel dan cerita [[distopia]] modern. Pemisahan orang berdasarkan kelas profesional, penetapan profesi dan tujuan oleh negara, ketiadaan satuan keluarga tradisional, yang digantikan oleh pembiakan yang diorganisir oleh negara, dimuat oleh para pengarang yang menggambarkan pemerintahan distopia yang totaliter. Pemerintah yang mirip dengan Republik Plato terdapat dalam buku [[Brave New World]] karya Aldous Huxley dan [[The Giver]] karya Lois Lowry.

[[Distopia]] [[Orwellian]] yang digambarkand alam novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four|1984]]'' mempunyai banyak kesamaan dengan gambaran Plato tentang [[alegori tentang Gua]] sementara Winston Smith berjuang untuk membebaskan dirinya daripadanya.

<!--=== Heinlein ===
Sebuah pandangan yang lebih positif tentang gaya pemerintahan Platonis diberikan oleh Robert A. Heinlein dalam bukunya [[Starship Troopers]]. Warga negaranya dapat dibandingkan dengan seorang wali menurut Plato, tanpa pembiakan dan harta milik komunal, namun masih tetap memiliki basis militeristik. Meskipun ada perbedaan-perbedaan penting dalam gambaran spesifik dari sistemnya, Heinlein dan Plato sama-sama mendukung sistem ''franchise'' terbatas, dengan kelas politik yang telah memperoleh kekuasaannya dan yang memerintah keseluruhan polis dengan bijaksana. ''Republik'' secara khusus diserang dalam ''Starship Troopers''.  Bahkan arachnids dapat dianggap lebih dekat dengan masyarakat ''Republik'' daripada dengan manusia.-->

== Karya seni berdasarkan Republik Plato ==
Pada awal [[1970-an]] komponis [[Belanda]] [[Louis Andriessen]] mengarang sebuah karya vokal berjudul ''[[De Staat]]'', berdasarkan teks ''Republik'' Plato.<ref>[[Robert Adlington|Adlington, Robert]]. ''Louis Andriessen: De Staat''. Ashgate, 2004. ISBN 0-7546-0925-1 [http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2005/Jan05/Andriessen_book.htm] - Muncul dalam sebuah rekaman CD 1992 oleh [[Schoenberg Ensemble]], yang dipimpin oleh [[Reinbert de Leeuw]]
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000005J0K/104-9192728-9166343?v=glance&n=5174] - Pada 1977 Andriessen dianugerahi sejumlah hadiah untuk kompoissinya ini [http://composers21.com/compdocs/andriesl.htm]</ref>

== Lihat pula ==
* [[216 (angka)|Angka 216]]
* [[Pemerintahan campuran]]
* [[Mitos Kekeliruan]]
* [[Raja-filsuf]]
* [[The Spindle of Necessity]]

== Catatan ==
<div class="reflist4" style="height: 300px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px noprint" >
{{reflist|2}}
</div>
== Referensi ==
* Plato ''The Republic'', (New [[Cambridge University Press]] terj. bahasa Inggris) ISBN 0-521-48443-X
* Plato ''Respublica'', (New [[Oxford University Press]] edisi teks Yunani) ISBN 0-19-924849-4
* [[Allan Bloom|Bloom, Allan]], ''The Republic of Plato'' terjemahan, dengan catatan dan esai penafsiran. Edisi ke-2, Basic Books: New York, 1991.
* Bruell, Christopher, “On Plato’s Political Philosophy.” ''Review of Politics'' 56 (1994) 261-82.
* [[Bertrand Russell|Russell, Bertrand]], ''History of Western Philosophy''. Simon & Schuster: New York, 1946. - Lihat: dua bab dalam ''Republic'' oleh Plato, ditambah dengan bab pengantar tentang asal usul konsep-konsep Plato: Buku I, Bagian 2, Bab 13-15.''
* [[John Sallis|Sallis, John]], ''Being and Logos: Reading the Platonic Dialogues'', edisi ke-3, Indiana University Press: Bloomington, 1996, ps. 5.
* [[Leo Strauss|Strauss, Leo]], 'Plato' ''History of Political Philosophy'' edisi ke-3, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago, hlm. 34-68 1987.
* [[Leo Strauss|Strauss, Leo]], ''The City and Man''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
* [[Eric Voegelin|Voegelin, Eric]], ''Plato and Aristotle'', Louisiana University Press, Baton Rouge, 1956.

== Pranala luar ==
{{wikisource|The Republic}}
{{wikibookspar|Study Guide:Plato|Republic}}
* Teks ''Republik'':
** Dalam [[Project Gutenberg]]: Terjemahan [[Benjamin Jowett]] (termasuk pengantar yang panjang): [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1497 e-text]
** Dalam [[Perseus Project]]: [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Rep.+toc Teks anotasi (Inggris dan Yunani)]
** Dalam "Internet Classics Archive" [[MIT]]: [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html Terjemahan Benjamin Jowett] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110411054817/http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html |date=2011-04-11 }}
** Dalam filepedia.org: [http://www.filepedia.org/node/4 Terjemahan Benjamin Jowett dalam format pdf dan word]
** [[RSS (format file)|RSS]] versi [http://rss.duchs.com/plato/the-republic/ ''The Republic''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070310195306/http://rss.duchs.com/plato/the-republic/ |date=2007-03-10 }}
* Ongoing discussion of Plato's text (and Popper's analysis):
** [http://bookshelved.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TheRepublic On Bookshelved Wiki] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071014020833/http://bookshelved.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?TheRepublic |date=2007-10-14 }}
** [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?TheRepublic On Meatball Wiki]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Ethics and Politics in ''The Republic'']

{{Authority control}}

[[Kategori:Utopia]]
[[Kategori:Dialog Plato]]
[[Kategori:Filsafat]]
[[Kategori:Dialog Socrates]]